Requests for permissions
- Requested user-rights: Administrator.
Hi, I'm fighting vandalism in Wikimedia projects. I need this right for revert vandal changes and block users who are dealing with vandalism and delete pages fast. You can get information about my overall activity here. Thanks.--Turkmen talk 21:14, 7 iyun 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Local admins should have familiarity with the software itself and this project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Prior to filing this request, Turkmen made (as far as my non-admin eyes can see) only 2 edits:  and . Other than edits relating to this request or on their user talk page, they seem to have only made 1 more edit to this site: . Without an establish need ("revert vandal changes" was given, but the user is a global rollbacker; "block users who are dealing with vandalism and delete pages fast" was also given, but without past examples) or track record here, I must oppose. If there are deleted contributions that I am not aware of that would suggest otherwise, please let me know and I'll reconsider. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
User: Leaderboard (2)
- Requested user-rights: Bureaucrat.
Hi. I've been a MediaWiki admin for quite some time now, and often see requests on this page for which I'd like to help, but cannot since I am not a bureaucrat - and this section is not frequently visited by bureaucrats, leading to requests (some of this being visible in this very page) taking quite a long time to approve/deny. Another motivation for gaining this right is that I occasionally need to import stuff from other wikis, and hence would then be able to add/remove the importer right wherever required.
Some things to keep in mind though:
- I'm not a developer
- I've failed past adminship requests.
- Support Leaderboard has been very good at the sysop level and I think he is fit for bureaucrat Examknow (Lets Chat) 21:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose user page looks like it is about hat collecting, also I question the user's judgement on user rights requests - at Special:Diff/3219209 "I don't see the en.wiki block as an issue" --Krenair (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose What Krenair says, but I won't say 'like', it's what it's, because this is bout the fourth time same issue is raised on multiple projects. This comment elucidates on that some months ago. There's also a big problem in not seeing a problem with a user proven to be using sockpuppet accounts and had to have their talk page access revoked due to continued disruption. Ammarpad (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose cross-wiki hat collector. Found this on accident when researching RfX on different projects and felt compelled enough to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Other requests and requests for comments
Proposal to remove long-term inactive administrators
- Previous discussion on the same topic: Project:Requests/RfC/Removal_of_inactive_sysops.
- Current admin/'crat statistics: https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/stewardry/mediawikiwiki?sysop=1&bureaucrat=1
I was wondering if the views of the community would have changed since the last discussion took place on whether we should stablish a mechanism to remove long-term inactive administrators. The easiest solution for me would be to add this wiki to the list of projects where AAR is applied. I feel it is quite a conservative policy in which it requires 2 years of absolute inactivity plus one month warning to the community and the user before any kind of removal can take place. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I see a decent amount of people in the statistics list that apparently haven't edited the wiki in a few years, but are still active on IRC/Gerrit/Phabricator. We shouldn't desysop those people. Legoktm (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. The good thing about m:AAR is that for every admin detected as inactive it requires both community and user notification. If the user replies that he wish to keep their rights, policy mandates that rights should be kept unless the community rules otherwise. That's why I think it's a kinda straightforward and conservative policy in that regard. Thanks for your input. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Mark for translation request
Affiliate-selected Board seats/Resolution 2019
I wish to support translating details related to the Affiliate-selected Board seats/Resolution 2019, as this is a great new passage we are taking, and my request may include:
- Although still a draft, Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Call for Candidates could be translated sooner, as candidates are called for between 15 to 30 April. Or kindly point to versions later than this one, if any other guideline affiliates can refere to.
- the voting system: affiliates needs to decide delegates who will be "...Voting for nominees by Affiliates from 8 to 31 May."
- Optional, but "News" section in Aff Com could be updated for transparency reasons as: Reviewing and screening by the community from 1 to 7 May.
- Are you sure this is about mediawiki.org? wargo (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Omotecho:If you want to request for marking the page for translation, please request at meta:Translation_requests.--94rain Talk 15:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I will update a link to this page in a note on Help:Extension:Translate/Page_translation_example/ja; it should link to meta:Translation_requests, my mistake writing _marking for translation_ is handled here on this talk, and try to solve confusion. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)