Requests for global permissions

R4356th's Request for Interwiki Administrator

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Successful. Clear consensus, in which there was unanimity that were no issues or concerns about the candidate. Dmehus (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User: R4356th ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I already volunteer with some advanced rights here on Meta and would like to help out more. I have been volunteering a lot on Miraheze for the past few months by translating, helping other users etc. I want to be able to help out users who want to be able to use interwiki links in their wikis. I will also use the right on my own wikis but it is not the main reason behind requesting this right and I would have requested for local  rights on those wiki, if that were the case. I meet all the requirements:
 * Have at least 1000 total global edits on Miraheze: I had 2,508 edits while writing this request.
 * Have had their Miraheze account for at least 2 months: I created my account on 5 June, 2020.
 * Be involved in some way in community matters: I am an active Meta Translation Administrator, Wiki Creator and Patroller. I am also very active on Discord (and sometimes on IRC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4356th (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Valid reasoning and nicely worded. I will support this since you seem to meet the criteria plus have good reason to request. Danner (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This could be debatable, especially since global rights can only be given to those who have met the criteria, thus, eliminating the chance of hat-collecting. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I already meet all the requirements. R4356th (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Even if the local rights can be sufficient for him, I think there are very helpful and trusted for hold the global rights. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 08:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  The weak part of my support vote is because in my opinion, there are too many interwiki administrators at the moment. I do not think there are enough interwiki requests to justify having 8 (9 with R4356th if successful) interwiki administrators. I have seen the discussion below about some of them being inactive, and if that is the case I would support removing them and even so I think there would still be enough. However, I have looked at R4356th's contributions and I believe that there is enough experience and activity for this role and therefore I do not feel an oppose only on the grounds that there are too many is necessary in this case. DeeM28 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I think this candidate will do well and I believe they will be active. Frigg (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. There is no need for more interwiki admins IMHO.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC) edited --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinion, I cannot really agree with it since there are only 8 Interwiki Administrators at the moment. Three of them are also inactive and one of them is barely seen on Meta. R4356th (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some are active and response time is fine.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Some are active" - I never said there is not any active interwiki admin. I just pointed out that almost half of the team is inactive. R4356th (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is no need for more iw admins, there should have been a quota for total number of IW admins, because there should be a set definition as to which number of IW admin is enough IW admins. &mdash; revi  18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited my vote, I forgot to include "IMHO". --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

WikiJS's Request for Global Sysop

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Unsuccessful, closure per User close policy. Good-faith request. Candidate should take the concerns expressed and integrate themselves within the community by volunteering in other ways, without the need for additional permissions, first. Dmehus (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User: WikiJS ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I am interested in the CVT, as well as I am interested in helping the community as a Global Sysop, and I am familiar with all policies at the time. I have never been a sysop outside of my wikis, but I have administrative experience in certain games (Roblox games to be more specific). I assume good-faith, understanding the CoC (Code of Conduct), CP (Content Policy), and not related to this right, but understandment of this policy, Dormancy Policy.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
Feel free to put your votes in the comments, as I will take all opposes, abstains, and supports into consideration.

Questions for candidate

 * Why you should be GS? How you will get reports from users? What user right in GS toolkit is most important?--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Hat collecting + 355 edit globally on only 10 wikis, not to mention recent "incident" at RfP.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Hm, good point. What is hat collecting though, probably a stupid question for someone who is requesting global sysop.  Wiki JS  13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Sorry, the Miraheze community does not sell hats! You might be able to get them here though. Seriously speaking, +1 to what MrJaroslavik said above.  13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  I just meant to post a comment but was forced to go eat. But my comments are exactly the same as what others have said, so here comes an extra strong oppose as well. Only less than 400 edits on all Miraheze wikis, previously requested wiki creator rights and sysop rights on the Public Test Wiki (these I have been granted but not many edits (only 2) have been made there by this user). By the way, there is no clear evidence for such a great right. Maybe sometime again, not now and not necessarily this year. --Anton (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

DarkMatterMan4500's Request for Global Sysop

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User: DarkMatterMan4500 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
Well, considering we only have 1 global sysop left, and the fact that there really hasn't been many global sysops since Zppix and MrJaroslavik resigned in recent months, I've been hesitant whether or not I'd want to try out being a global sysop for these reasons: Not only have I been helpful in many reports in the past to the CVT, but I've also helped in providing evidence to my reports. With this, I could lock any disruptive user as a last resort. But that's not all: I've been on here since January 2020, mostly active within the community, but didn't get fully involved with the entire Miraheze community until Around September to October when I joined Miraheze's server on Discord. I hope I can be as much helpful than I am now. Feel free to ask me any questions and I should be able to answer them as soon as I receive them. Thanks. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments given by user (if any)
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  This user is extremely helpful, helps stewards, which is what the right was intended for, and is indeed friendly. This is all of the qualities I like in a GS  Buk kit  (talk) ( C ) 19:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I actually wasn't expecting this from you, but yes. I've been combating vandalism on wikis that have active vandalism occurring, so having this permission wouldn't be any different either. While sometimes my reports might have mistakes and all, most of them are very accurate and I do pay attention to the tiniest of details in my reports. Plus being a participant of fighting off vandalism, sockpuppetry and spam bots makes it feel like I have some sort of power within me. I've learned quite a lot about these permissions over the months of me being on this platform, and know the full scope and purpose of this type of responsibility. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Ugochimobi's Request for Interwiki Admin

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ✅. Consensus from the discussion is clear here. The user was asked many questions from the community, some of the most thorough questions I've seen asked of any interwiki administrator candidate. The user has responded to the lone opposing view by correcting that they said they would use sound, independent editorial judgment without the use of any automated tools, in addition to one of the most rigorous assessment processes I've ever seen outlined by an interwiki administrator. It's perhaps helpful to provide a clarifying note here in terms of what constitutes a malicious site. In general terms, it is any website that either (a) is a phishing website or (b) distributes viruses or potentially other harmful malware. Parked domains (i.e., those GoDaddy.com or Google-hosted parked domain websites), with advertising on them, while indeed spammy, wouldn't constitute malicious for the purposes of the policy. It's also perhaps helpful to clarify when global interwiki administrators should use their rights to edit a wiki's local interwiki table. They should add or modify an interwiki prefix following a request from a regular contributor of the local wiki (i.e., not necessarily a local bureaucrat or sysop). While there's no requirement to have local consensus prior to adding or changing an interwiki prefix on a given local wiki, in the event the addition or change was disputed, the change or addition should be reverted until the local discussion concludes, closed by a local bureaucrat (or a Steward where there aren't any active bureaucrats). As such, if they are themselves a regular contributor on the wiki, it should be fine to an add an interwiki prefix, but as, perhaps, a recommended best practice, it would be a good idea to reach out to local bureaucrat(s) and see if they have any objections to the interwiki administrator adding local interwiki prefixes as they may from time to time have a need to do. Finally, with regard to the interesting hypothetical question on whether a global interwiki administrator should defer to any local interwiki administrator (if any) on the wiki, while the policy is silent on this, though not an obligation, I would say it would also be a very good practice to follow the practice of Stewards and Global Sysops and perhaps locally ping that local interwiki administrator to the local request. If the local interwiki administrator did not action the request within a reasonable period of time (i.e., a couple of days), then it would be absolutely fine to respond to the local community's request to add or change a local interwiki prefix, notwithstanding if local wikis had any local policies or guidelines stating they were agnostic as to whether local or global interwiki administrators action requests. Another exception to this, of course, would be Loginwiki, which has no local community or locally-assigned user groups, for that matter, so it is acceptable for global interwiki administrators to use their global user right there. Dmehus (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

User: Ugochimobi ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I know I could help the community in reviewing local interwiki table configuration requests cuz, following the policies guiding Interwiki (like making sure no malicious links are added), I could handle that. You know, I specifically call it InterMiraheze linking cuz Wikimedia calls it InterWikimedia linking.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
I'm sure I could handle this in Good faith

Questions for candidate
I have several questions. Buk kit (talk) ( C ) 14:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) How would you make sure that the site is not malicious?
 * 2) Let's say you accidentally put a website that is dangerous, what would you do?
 * 3) A user is requesting an interwiki to let's say "scamwebsite.scam"

I have procedurally moved question here. Two questions:
 * 1) What you will do if you want add interwiki prefix to your own wiki, where you dont have local "interwiki administrator" permission? --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) If you need to evaluate the trustworthiness of a site without the use of the website you mentioned, what factors would you take into account?
 * 2) A request to add an interwiki link, made on the Community noticeboard, turns into a dispute around whether the user who made the request was authorized to do so (whether it be a dispute about who's allowed to make a request or about consensus for the addition). How would you, as an Interwiki administrator, handle this situation?
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Two more questions:
 * If, for whatever reason, you come across an interwiki link to a malicious site, what action would you take? What would you do if you're not sure about it?
 * How would you handle a request to add an interwiki link to a suspicious (but not obviously malicious) site, with adequate justification for why that site is to be added?
 * Also note that pings don't work if you don't include your signature in the same edit in which you add the ping. — Arcversin (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Answer from candidate
Questioner:

Okay, sorry I had to create a new section under this
 * 1) There's actually a tool I do use to track the safety of any website before I do anything on them, like for example Miraheze. Before I started a full activity on miraheze in general I scanned the website URL(miraheze.org) with the tool I do use(URLVOID.com) to make sure I'm safe. the result of the scan could be found here

--Ugochimobi (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Questioner:
 * 1) I pray I don't accidentally put a dangerous website on the table but In the case where this is true, I would remove it as immediately as possible, although I would always use my scan tool before adding.
 * 2) Well in this case where the web address is kinda funny, It really do matter, for example, if someone scrolling past the interwiki table and sees "https://scamwebsite.scam/$1" It worth attention calling and worths questioning cuz it doesn't appear to be true. A user with the ability to see the Log would want to and eventually want to see who placed it there. So yes, even though my scanner tells me it's not malicious, the appearance isn't good at all and I'll eventually reject such request except in cases that are exceptional, probably a request from Miraheze I think.

In such case, I'd do two things, either I request for interwiki configuration normally from a global interwiki admin or I discuss what I'm adding to the interwiki table on a specific discussion page on the wiki, to seek consensus before adding. --Ugochimobi (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Questioner:


 * 1) Yes I could evaluate the trustworthiness of a site without the website by considering the site's look, the site's link, see if they are actually authors or publishers that are anonymous. With these, the trustworthiness of a site can be determined
 * 2) It's quite simple, a user comes to request interwiki table configuration on a wiki that they don't administrate? I'm only trying to get how that can happen. But if it results in a dispute whereby the Bureaucrat(s) of that wiki starts attacking the user who requested, They'll be asked if they are okay with the configuration request, If not then the request should be terminated. Because I'm sure not every user could request interwiki change, Imagine an auto(confirmed) user requesting interwikimedia table change in a wmf site, that's almost impossible except in some exceptional cases.

--Ugochimobi (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Questioner:


 * 1) In such a case, I'd prefer a community discussion on why it was added to the intermiraheze table since I am not about the maliciousness of the link.
 * 2) If I got the second question clearly, How would I handle a request to add a malicious link to the intermiraheze wiki table even when there is adequate justification on why it should be added?
 * Well, I am always going to refer such a case to a community discussion board for interwiki admins since it is suspected to be malicious.

--Ugochimobi (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Decent answers, no apparent issues, and some experience with local interwiki-admin. Thanks for volunteering! — Arcversin (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your questions and support too plus thanks for the notice on the Ping template Ugochimobi (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Very good answers and have perfect experience with local interwiki-admin and helped many wikis without any mischief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew071117 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Well, this user has done some decent work as of late, and that's saying something. Others may not agree, and I don't partially blame them for having such an opposition. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  It seems like the requester plans to use a website for judging links. That is not ideal; automated tools are prone to errors and should never be used as the first option.  14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th In accordance to 's question.. "I could evaluate a site maliciousness/trustworthiness better even without any external or internal tool (if made available)." Ugochimobi (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

MrJaroslavik's Request for Global Sysop

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * The process by which one is declared successful is not merely from counting vote icons, as this isn't simply a simple ballot. Rather, it is expressing arguments in favour or in opposition to the person's candidacy. The policy does require a minimum of ten (10) unique persons, by way of their registered user accounts, to have expressed a view. Looking at the expressions below, several users have merely said "welcome back" or even made no argument together with their expression of support. I did consider whether those that had no accompanying argument with their expression of support were actually considered valid expressions of support because, on the one hand, it's just a voting template with an icon. On the other hand, it does include their signature, and the word support included as part of that template could be taken as a sign of no opposition. As well, there's clearly no opposition from the lack of opposition in their expression of "support." So, on that basis, I considered those having made no argument with their vote to be exactly that, and on a non-precedent setting basis, a valid expression for the purpose of counting unique persons, according to the policy, but not a supportive argument since, well, there was no argument. The strongest argument comes from DeeM28, in which the user articulates a couple concerns and their reason for supporting the candidate with some hesitation and/or trepeditation, for which the candidate is well advised to take heed. Nevertheless, considering all of the above, there is consensus, albeit a bit weak given the lack of accompanying arguments, for the candidate to be granted the bit. Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User: MrJaroslavik ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reason(s) for request
Hello, i would like to request GS rights back. I became GS 11 months ago, then i resigned 2/3 months ago. Today, I looked at #cvt channel and i saw there are some unresolved requests. When i was GS and avavaible, i replied in reasonable amount of time (i think). For transparency: I requested Stewardship, but it was unsuccesfull, for understandable reasons (some users understand). All you need know is on my UP and in previous request. Thank you.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
Please, if you have questions, ask me.

Questions for candidate

 * Could you give a short explanation on why you chose to leave and what's changed? ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  10:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello sure.  I didn't want to go back to that, but ... I kept having to wonder why I was still here.  I didn't want to fight in a pre-lost battle with an unnamed user(s). I've been out for a while.  Now I don't see any new problems and i see there is some delay with requests for CVT.  Also I didn't expect that no one will run for GS/Steward and there will be so many resignations. Did that answer your question?--MrJaroslavik (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are also a member of the Ombuds commission on wikimedia. What would you do in a situation when there is need to act on both miraheze and wikimedia? ~ Mazzaz (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello I'm sorry, but I can't imagine any situation that would result in my conflict of interest. Of course, my past activity shows that I act very strictly in COI issues. Therefore, if I were forced to deal with anything I dealt with as a case in OC, I would not deal with it on Miraheze and vice versa.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MrJaroslavik, your activity seems to be declining from the May onwards. Will you increase it or you'll go with the same pace? ~ Mazzaz (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello It wasn't "total" inactivity, i have done about 15 actions since my resignation. But yes, if elected, i will open RC as like before, every hour or so. Also i always had my Discord DMs open for example for urgent request.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * 1) Honestly, I'd like him to return as a Global sysop as I've been feeling like that there has been a lot of vacant permissions being thrown out of the window. So yeah, it would be great if he comes back as a Global Sysop again. :) DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  He seems very trusted, and we only have 1 Global Sysop.  —［ <span style="font-weight:800; padding:0.25em 0.5em;border-radius:.35em;background-color:#d2527f;background:background-image: linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -o-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228); background-image: -khtml-linear-gradient(45deg,#CF121F,#F83A0C,#F83A0C,#FF6347,#FFD228););color:rgba(255,255,255,1);text-shadow:0 1px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2)">Bukkit  ］［  Talk  |  Contributions  |  Barnstars  10:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I really miss you being a global sysop, not to mention that there really has been a lot of inactivity from sysadmins and other administrators here on Meta as of lately, so I'm strongly supporting this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Welcome back!  15:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)   Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  --DuchessTheSponge (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  Welcome back! — Arcversin (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  Yahya (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  Welcome back! I was thinking to do a request for GS too but this in hold for now (I need to try to finish this before the end of holiday) HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 11:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  had it been we have something like Stronger Strongest support that's what I'd use cuz we need more GS, and your previous GSship was great and you're trusted as well. Ugochimobi (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 10)  After considering both the negative and positive aspects I have decided that I will weakly support the request. I do not have any particular issues with MrJaroslavik's previous activity and actions as Global Sysop which is the reason why I have decided to support his candidature. In addition I have noticed that the current members of the Countervandalism Team have been less active than usual lately so it is my belief that another Global Sysop is needed for this purpose. The reason why I do not share the "strongest" support enthusiasm that I see the other users do and why my support is weak is because of the past issues and drama that occurred leading to the resignation. I do not want to bring this back either as I do not think that is productive so all want to say is that I really hope that when becoming Global Sysop again you will try to avoid drama and not let personal issues with other users get in the way of your Global Sysop work. --DeeM28 (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section