I am surprised that it is not approved yet. How to do it? Simple editing seem to be blocked - Supermohi ( talk) 18:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)ĭone - Supermohi ( talk) 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Approval of requested Wiki May I translate it? Clicking the "translation" button brought me to another page but there is obviously no link to go one step further. Just saw the translation of the german main page is not yet complete. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The above discussion is preserved as an archive. I think this was the best way to solve the problem :) And I generally give autopatrolled to users who are active on Meta and don't need to be patrolled. I'd honestly like some discussion about why they SHOULDN'T be assigned, instead of this. :) - Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk Long story short, until I hear from SPF or I see these rights used abusively or in bad faith, I'm going to go ahead and assigning these rights.Well sysop can not be as easily removed, it can still be removed by any active steward or bureaucrat. Rollbacks can easily be reverted, including rolling back the rollback. Autopatrol/confirmed/etc (including rollback) can be easily removed. Examples for such requests that should be considered more in depth would include server access, stewardship, crat, and Oversight/ CheckUser. IMHO the only reason rights shouldn't be granted is if there is a reason to believe that they will be misused, the request for rights is made in bad faith, or there is a security/privacy reason to deny the request. In my own opinion, and not representing any policy or view of Miraheze staff, I think that if something needs to be done, it should be done by anyone able to, and as many people should be able to as possible. Comment: I'm actually thinking of writing an essay on the subject matter.If there will be vandalism you will probably be assigned. The user is active and helps a lot at Miraheze but there is no need for rollback as we've only had 2 vandals on Meta since the creation of Miraheze. Comment: Not against the user having permissions, in fact I support the user themselves, but I'm not sure how much these rights are needed as Meta isn't very active and there's already more than 5 sysops.I simply Request Rollback permissions permissions on the wiki, as It is a quite basic Permission that might be required in some specific situations and That is only one Administrator active, It would be likely to help him in such a basic thing, And let him do the Real job he needs to do. Support (I didn't even support it myself) As I don't think we should have inactive sysops on meta. I haven't seen this on wiki, don't know them well, and will not be performing a check). (This is also assuming the two are the same user. QuimGil and Icaria36: to see if either replies. SleepyMode 18:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Comment: Neither really appears active on Meta. Reception123 (talk)( contribs) 05:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Ĭomments Support The user is Inactive and shouldn't stay with Administrator permissions. Therefore, I propose that either his rights are removed or they are switched to his other account used more often, Icaria36. I think that it's not a good idea to have inactive administrators on Meta. I have noticed that User:QuimGil is an administrator but has no edits globally or on meta. Removal or Switiching of Administrator rights for User:QuimGil Not done As there are not enough votes to determine if the rights should be removed or not.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |