Talk:Steward requests/Permissions/2020

Extension of waiting period for Zhuyifei1999@commonswiki

Regarding Zhuyifei1999@commonswiki: I would like to ask for an extension of the standard 1 day waiting period for resignation of advanced permissions to something like 7 days --Schlurcher (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Schlurcher: I don't think -revi meant this talk page. It should be the user talk page (here/commons) for them to reconsider. And no, 1 day is long enough to prevent rage quit. I won't want 7 days. Regards, :)Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

My intention is that "if you have something to say to Zhuyifei, go to their talk page". Also, I do not think we need to increase our standard waiting times for that long. — regards, Revi 16:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@-revi: Given the situation (which continues to develop) and differing time zones, extending the waiting period with a few days (3 or so?) may be reasonable. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 16:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I did sent Zhuyifei1999 an e-mail. Zhuyifei1999 stated that he will not read his talk page any more. I'm not asking for a general extension, but for an extension in this case. 3 days seem to be fair. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, We tend to respect the user's request for removal over other people's request, so that is unlikely to happen, unless Zhuyifei requests extension (or withdraw himself). — regards, Revi 16:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

For this reason I made my original request. I would like to give them at least some time to consider or a chance to ask for an extension themselves. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@-revi: To indicate what's going on: you may be looking at the removal of 5 different sysop bits in the near future. That's the kind of situation we are in. Could you at least wait until Zhuyifei has had a chance to respond to mails from me and Schlurcher? That may not result in an actual extension, but time zones differ and Zhuyifei may have chosen to leave their keyboard for a moment. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 16:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Zhuyifei has responded so I'm good. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 21:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I still think a longer waiting period is fair, as the topic that lead to Zhuyifei1999 request is still being discussed heavily on Commons. As my original ask for 7 days (which I still consider short) does not seem to resonate well, I would appreciate an extended waiting time of 3 days. I fully understand that it may not change anything, but we can win more than we loose. Some things require time. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Granting importer rights

I would like to know whether Stewards will be able to grant importer right to users for use in mlwiki. Adithyak1997 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, it is recommended to use transwiki importer by changing the wiki settings, unless the community must use importupload function. If the community needs importupload function, it must go through the community consensus process. This means someone who wants importupload right need to go through a procedure similar to local RfA. --Sotiale (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sotiale: As of now, mlwiki uses importupload function. But, if there is a policy that states interface admins can be given importupload functionality even without voting (this is not yet implemented), will they be given importer right? Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think we are comfortable granting import right without any sort of community consensus process. It is a restricted, dangerous permission (because you can attribute A's contribution as B's, without being easily noticed - think of introducing fake news) thus it requires community discussion. There are few people who got the permissions when the rules were more permissive, but it's just that we don't inspect good faith old users, and you should not interpret it as "if we have X person granted without community discussion, we can still get it without community discussion". — regards, Revi 15:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I understood the problem. Thanks for letting me know. Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think it's difficult. As revi explained, this permission is a fairly dangerous and requires supervision. The importer of mlwiki is a bot account, which was granted in 2008(I found this today, maybe it needs a review of this flag). The standards at that time and present are different. --Sotiale (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove access for Kitayama after censoring and blocking users as Drmofaka

Kitayama has a different opinion regarding the development of the island Löparö which is located in the archieplago of Stockholm. The island has a lot of secondary homes and is known for conflict regard "winter bridge", parking space, roads and other common areas of conflicts.

Kitayama censors and blocks users that has different facts then her opinion. One example is removing the official document and link: https://loparoskargardsby.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Ska%CC%88rmavbild-2020-01-16-kl.-14.14.46.png

or not accepting links from a real estate project that is active on the island which Kitayama dont like: https://loparoskargardsby.se/norrtalje-kommun-siktar-hogt-och-vill-bli-sveriges-popularaste-landsbygd-och-skargard/

It is ok to have different opinions. But when Wikipedia and its administrators is a place where only certain facts are approved because they are according to the opinions of certain administrators the whole purpose of Wikipedia is gone.

That is sad because Wikipedia is a great solution if it can stay objective.

I believe this is not the founders purpose (after having talked about it when wikipedia was founded).

Please clean up this type of admins and dont become a opinion based site where only one side is welcome.

I would like to have my permission to contribute to facts for the page: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6par%C3%B6

Thanks for taking the time to go through this. Have a great day.

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drmofaka (talk)

Hello Drmofaka. I would like to let you know the stewards are not supervisors of administrators, each project has its own procedures for recalling administrators. Please consult Swedish Wikipedia policies with how to proceed. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Rights for local image in avk.wiki

Hello. I am admin on avkwiki (Kotava project). Since the beginning, only Commons images are allowed on this wiki. A contributor created an article about Anita Kulcsár best handball woman player of the world in 2004 (dead in 2015), but the only available picture of her is on en:File:Anita_Kulcsár.jpg in local mode. Since this photo is allowed on en.wiki, which is the reference version of Wikipedia, I think that being able to use it on avk.wiki would make sense. I know that some wikis allow their admins to upload local images. Who could give me the rights to do so? What procedure should I follow? Thank you for your insights. Nevatovol (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevatovol, you already have the rights, but you need to develop licensing policy for the wiki. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy requires wikis to have Exemption Doctrine Policy for local unfree images to be allowed. An example of such is en:WP:FUC. Then you just go to avk:Special:Upload and follow the instruction specified there to configure licensing templates. --Base (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

And that is something you certainly need to discuss with your community, note that akwiki currently has 0 local files. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:Base, User:Xaosflux. Thank you for your details.

So I have to translate the resolution and then make the link and description for each local file? I think I'll use exactly the references of the enwiki source file.

Do you think a discussion is necessary with the whole avkwiki community, or only between the 3 administrators? With the whole community, I'm afraid it will be complicated because few people will understand exactly what this means, why there are differences in treatment in this or that wiki. In wide communities, getting well-argued and representative decisions is probably easier (even if the number of participants is much wider), whereas in a small community like ours, I think that only 2 or 3 people will argue precisely.

I will discuss this with the other two admins. I think that we should be able to admit files punctually and in a very limited way and only validated by an admin. I will put here the link to these discussions (even if they will be in kotava). Thank you. Nevatovol (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I am a bureaucrat and sysop on mywiki. I have something to do with MediaWiki namespaces, and I'll do an announcement/discussion on my local wiki. After discussion, Do I need to make a request here OR can I grant myself as an interface admin if there is no objection on local wiki? Thanks. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 14:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ninjastrikers, the latter, you can just grant it to yourself given no one objects. That being said please note, that for interface admins 2FA is compulsory by WMF directive, you should enable it before granting yourself the flag if you do not have it on yet. --Base (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Noted and thank you. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 03:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ninjastrikers: also keep in mind, that all of your sysops should be able to edit the mediawiki space in general, int-admin is only needed for .js / .css pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I needed the int-admin to porting some gadgets from enwiki which will need to edit gadget .js pages. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 03:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)