[00:06:12] raidarr: could also put it in the sidebar [00:15:01] [discord] I've thought of that [00:15:29] [discord] while I access it another way anyway I'd probably do similar for the wiki request queue since its sidebar access is not tied to the steward group [00:15:56] oh wait it isn't? [00:16:20] [discord] nope [00:16:34] [discord] one of the quirks I noticed trying to eliminate as many hats as possible [00:16:36] thoughts on adding it? [00:16:56] for stewards [00:16:57] [discord] no issue with it being baked in for both groups as long as they don't duplicate [00:17:26] [discord] and the rename page on sidebar would be neat in general [00:19:21] raidarr: you think requests or tools would be best? [00:19:24] for rename [00:19:34] if it was to be added [00:19:44] [discord] semantically fits into requests I'd say [00:20:06] want me to do that alongside fixing the requestwikiqueue link? [00:20:15] [discord] sure, that would be neat [00:23:35] What's to fix? [00:29:18] Raidarr: done [00:29:47] [discord] excellent, both in sidebar now [00:29:55] Naleksuh: the 'Wiki request queue' link didn't show up for stewards who didn't keep the wikicreator group due to the js being in the Group-wikicreator.js [00:31:06] That's intentional behavior [00:31:17] Somehow I knew by your intonation you were "fixing" something that was not broken [00:33:15] Naleksuh: the change was explicitly requested by a steward, please see the above conversation [00:33:36] raidarr : Please either assign wiki creator to yourself or stop creating wikis [00:34:16] Also, no, it was requested by you, raidarr simply agreed [00:34:20] You are the one who suggested it [00:35:07] no need to be argumentative [00:41:53] chrs: your fix was reverted [00:42:33] MacFan4000: yeah I saw [00:43:02] Jesus if I have to get involved because of something so simple [00:43:14] What the hell does it matter if a steward has WC [00:43:24] they are obviously trusted enough to create wikis [00:43:39] didn't do anything after that because I'm obviously not going to edit war in the interface [00:43:57] [discord] Stewards supervise wiki creators so it would make sense if they can create wikis [00:44:00] And adding something as trival as a link to .js is not worth reverting simply because 1 user disagreeds [00:44:58] Not to mention the user reverting isnt even affected by the change. [00:45:41] There is not a single mention in the wiki creator, or wiki creation policy stating that stewards must have the WC usergroup to create wikis either [00:46:12] A huge part of the underlying issues on Miraheze is people adopting “policies” that simply don’t exist [00:46:17] And it needs to stop [00:47:11] It’s borderline gatekeeping and it’s determintal to the community as a whole [00:50:27] put a note on the talk page about this [00:50:48] Good, there is an issue with continues use of IRC for onwiki changes [00:50:55] I'm quite curious as to where this behavior was established such that Steward agreement isn't sufficient to alter the behavior of their own group JS file [00:54:01] As am I. [00:54:32] It’s adding a link, this is a very trival change that doesn’t even affect much. [00:54:49] We’re not talking about adding a brand new interface here [00:55:12] Naleksuh: the whole point of IRC is to give editors another avenue to discuss wiki things… [00:55:27] Wikimedia uses irc to do similar everday [00:55:53] and even if stewards weren't supposed to create wikis without having the `wikicreator` group, that doesn't mean they can't use the queue for investigating abuse, among other things [00:56:53] Suggesting they aren’t allow to create wikis would be the most absurd thing I’ve heard since I joined MH. [01:06:23] [discord] That would be nonsensical at best. But anyway, I was informed by @SelfCloak about a current thread in regards to Dmehus' rights being revoked. I gave my 2 cents on it in the form of an opposing vote. [01:09:16] [discord] MacFan4000 Do you want hide IP? [01:09:28] All Meta admins: Could one of you oversight this diff [01:09:31] https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Group-steward.js&diff=256618&oldid=256615&diffmode=source [01:09:31] [url] MediaWiki talk:Group-steward.js: Difference between revisions - Miraheze Meta | meta.miraheze.org [01:09:36] [discord] Yes [01:09:37] Sure [01:09:38] it has a user’s IP [01:09:51] Yup, mine [01:09:56] Yep [01:09:56] [discord] I got it [01:10:03] Thanks @zppix [01:10:21] don’t want personal info out there [01:11:13] Zppix doesn't have oversight permissions [01:11:25] [discord] Explain how I just did it then [01:12:17] By revision-deleting it [01:14:27] Oi somebody kick Apex [01:14:39] Why? [01:14:51] I'm being good. [01:14:53] Um you’re community-banned [01:15:14] [discord] Community-bans don’t apply to IRC unless it was included as a restriction [01:15:25] Oh okay my bad [01:15:40] Yeah @Zppix lol it was a revdel not oversight [01:15:44] It was included a restriction, but the closer didn't close it as such [01:15:44] The global ban was not closed as applying to IRC, but I was under the impression that was for an appeal in a year from now or something. Continuing to pop in every day clearly violates the spirit of the ban [01:16:06] Yep that’s why I was confused [01:16:20] when I was ToU banned I was banned from all IRC channels [01:16:34] I’d assume the same would apply to community bans [01:16:35] [discord] ToU ban is a completely different thing… [01:16:53] Well if the community wants him gone….the community wants him gone [01:17:02] I did ask that the ban applied to IRC but the closer said it would not apply. Why? Reasons [01:17:07] I'm a her [01:17:17] My mistake [01:17:18] her [01:17:24] But in any case [01:17:36] especially after her little mishap with sock puppets today [01:17:41] They should be banned [01:19:49] Does anyone disagree? [01:20:05] I do not [01:21:03] @MacFan4000 would it be possible to execute the ban [01:21:51] per the close: 'I leave the Discord and IRC teams to decide if this extends off-platform' [01:23:07] So a user that’s sockpuppeted, most recently within 6 hours, and has been banned by the Miraheze community as a whole, shouldnt be banned???… [01:23:15] oh no [01:24:03] BrandonWM: I will not apply a ban unless there is clear abuse in the channel or the moderation team agrees on it [01:24:38] @chrs what do you mean [01:24:51] @MacFan4000 Do I submit a request in #miraheze-ops [01:25:29] If we see a need for a discussion we will have it [01:25:35] the death threat copypasta mentioned in the ban RfC would warrant it if it could be proven for certain, but it's not that clear [01:25:36] How about I leave of my own accord and not rejoin for awhile? Would that work? [01:25:53] I would advise not rejoining unless you're in the process of an appeal [01:26:02] Okay. [01:26:03] Yes I agree with chrs [01:26:12] See you later then. [01:26:17] Great [01:26:34] uh @chrs death threst [01:26:36] ? [01:26:45] Hm? [01:27:02] BrandonWM: Oh have you not heard ? ApexAgunomu is a severe LTA who has evaded multiple bans and K-Lines to post gore [01:27:05] see the chat mentioned in [[Requests for Comment/Global ban for ApexAgunomu]] [01:27:05] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/Global_ban_for_ApexAgunomu [01:27:34] I told Libera staff about this and they note the possible connection between ApexAgunomu and Skiyomi, but haven't K-lined yet [01:27:57] and of course porn on testwiki.wiki, all the while claiming it was an upload test and that that was the first image they could find, and they were in a hurry [01:29:13] This user is actually an LTA [01:29:20] Pretending to be a misguided CIR user [01:29:35] Who screenshots porn? [01:29:43] ApexAgunomu, apparently [01:29:49] By the way if you don't know. ApexAgunomu is Bugambilia and Skiyomi [01:29:50] Lmao [01:30:04] Bugambillia is a stretch [01:30:11] It's not [01:30:17] They are literally the same account [01:30:33] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Redirect/logid/712728 [01:30:36] oh it's literally a global rename [01:30:48] Oh [01:30:55] Never realized they renamed [01:31:16] Yeah I didn't either. Clear attempt to evade scrutiny. Global ban proposal came just a few days after I realized that [01:31:17] I suspect that may be the point [01:31:30] [discord] Naleksuh: As far as I am aware a steward has every right inherently to create wiki and supervise wiki creators, so I see no reason to add an effectively redundant bit; I will permit, defer, even encourage on-wiki discussion of the matter if it is considered an issue, but until there is a clear decision mandating the divide I see no reason to change what I'm doing [01:32:18] Now that I’m herding this I am a bit more inclined to ban [01:32:53] ..op [01:32:56] .op [01:32:56] Attempting to OP... [01:33:36] Done [01:33:43] Can you unban `*!*@user/ApexAgunomu` and ban `$a:ApexAgunomu` instead [01:33:52] Also does this mean I can reinstate the ban in -dev? [01:34:44] Naleksuh it’s no different either way [01:34:57] They are cloaked so my way works [01:48:28] Wow [01:48:40] that’s way more than I thought [01:57:52] Way more what? [02:09:49] Way more severe infractions [08:25:05] Hello matttest37! If you have any questions, feel free to ask and someone should answer soon. [08:26:55] Hello matttest89! If you have any questions, feel free to ask and someone should answer soon. [13:45:02] Does anyone have opposition to me moving the global renamer RfC to open? [13:45:22] [discord] My opinion on the revocation of stewardship is support. I'll add my reasoning when on a computer [13:45:40] [discord] No oppositions from me [13:48:00] Why support for revocation? [13:48:33] if I get one other support for the moving RfC I’ll open it up [13:49:10] [discord] it has been a long lasting situation [13:49:25] I suppose [13:49:40] [discord] don't get me wrong, Doug has done many amazing things as a steward [14:10:00] BrandonWM: it's open now [14:12:39] chrs: thanks [14:12:51] SelfCloak: I just wish it never came to this [14:22:29] [discord] me neither, but this there are very good arguments there [14:27:49] Yeah [14:27:58] I’ll maintain my oppose, but for now [14:28:17] How long does a request like this have to stay open for? [14:29:03] [discord] No set time but it has to reach at least 20 votes with 50% of them being support [14:29:14] [discord] This RfRS will likely be a close call [14:29:19] Yeah [14:29:31] right now 10 votes, 6 in favor [14:29:38] @Agent do you plan to vote [14:31:10] [discord] I've been discussing this with various community stakeholders and I'll probably vote abstain. I can't support this request but I cannot fully oppose it. I do want this to serve as a wake up call for Dmehus to realize that the community has issues with how he handles things but I also don't want to lose an active Steward so it's complex [14:31:28] [discord] I think DeeM28's comment sums up best Doug's approach [14:31:50] [discord] @Brandom - that user asks about mobile version, not wiki creation [14:33:25] [discord] I just really don't wanna poke w/ MFE on my wikis to find out if it ditches ManageWiki menu from mobile version [14:33:40] [discord] anyone using it can tell m [14:33:45] [discord] anyone using it can tell me? (edited) [14:34:00] [discord] I did have a reason to vote for oppose: It's simply deja vu all over again, but Doug's disappearing act has left me with great concern, and not just the aforementioned things that were mentioned that I cannot deny has occurred as well. [14:34:00] [discord] @Brandon - that user asks about mobile version, not wiki creation (edited) [14:34:25] He was asking about creating wikis on mobile right [14:34:47] And I hope this is a wake up call [14:34:59] However what frightens me is that it may not be [14:35:00] [discord] I guess it's deja vu but in this case, that's not a good thing. There have been some recent issues coupled with old issues which were never resolved fully and people are just annoyed [14:35:09] Yeah it’s unfortunate [14:35:22] Doug should’ve learned from the past two RfR [14:35:47] [discord] My vote wouldn't evaluate his "disappearing act" though as that's a completely different thing [14:35:59] He’s likely dealing with something [14:36:04] [discord] If we're worried about him being inactive then a separate revocation for inactivity would be needed [14:36:05] probably hasn’t even seen the RfR [14:36:21] [discord] BrandonWM: He told me that he's been rather busy lately with work and such so yeah [14:36:30] yep [14:36:42] [discord] You're not the only one here. I too, was annoyed with some of his actions that he has logged publicly which is (spoiler alert), quite obvious in hindsight. [14:36:58] 😐 [14:37:14] [discord] His likely return will probably be July 1st, seeing as it's a federal holiday over in British Columbia, Canada. [14:37:29] [discord] potentially, yeah [14:37:38] [discord] Or perhaps over the week [14:38:22] Hopefully soon [14:38:42] I’d at least like him not to be blindsided with no rights when he gets bsck [14:38:58] [discord] Over the past several months, I've kept track of how many federal holidays are there over where he lives, and most of my thoughts of him returning has been surprisingly accurate to say the least. [14:39:29] [discord] July 1st is this Friday, by the way. [14:40:22] [discord] This RfRS will likely be a very close call [14:40:53] [discord] It's at 12/20 votes so far [14:41:48] [discord] @Brandom - they got their wiki created at least 3 hours before making to noticeboard, "настроить" doesn't mean "setting up" in context of creation [14:42:51] [discord] That apparently translates to tune in Russian. [14:42:58] [discord] That apparently translates to "Tune" in Russian. (edited) [14:42:58] so apparently we don't have minimum times for steward appointment/revocation [14:42:59] odd [14:43:29] [discord] We're not that different from Wikimedia, aside from the wiki farming, and whatnot. [14:43:37] [discord] Isn't it a minimum of a week for appointment? [14:43:44] [discord] Revocation has no minimum though [14:43:46] [discord] Let me see [14:43:50] there's one for GS [14:44:02] which has the same requirement for revocation [14:44:11] but steward doesn't have one at all [14:45:13] [discord] Steward does but the page isn't up to date [14:45:21] [discord] yeah lol it's not ideal [14:45:22] [discord] thing is "settings" is translated to Russian as "настройки" (very similar word) [14:45:23] [discord] In order for a request for global permissions to be successful, the request must have stayed open for at least seven days." [14:45:34] wait yeah the rfc added it [14:45:36] yep [14:45:51] [discord] I'll add it to the Stewards page right now [14:46:02] strange we don't have the same requirement for revocation [14:57:39] [discord] yeah lol it's not ideal [14:57:40] [discord] thing is "settings" is translated to Russian as "настройки" (edited) [16:43:44] @Agent But not too busy to close RfCs incorrectly XD [16:45:09] Lmao [16:46:08] [discord] This is not deja vu, the case and the votes are far more dangerous than they have ever been [16:47:28] [discord] Yeah, I switched my vote to abstain. [16:48:31] [discord] 9 supports vs 3 opposed and 1 abstain [16:48:34] [discord] This is most unfortunate [16:48:55] It's 4 oppose, but it doesn't matter because only 50% to remove a Steward [16:49:08] [discord] 3 because 1 moved their oppose to abstain [16:49:21] 4 because the 4 already counts that move, it was 5 before [16:49:25] [discord] Which was from me. I changed it to abstain. [16:49:47] Actually, the ` No one seen issues with Dmehus.` should probably just be struck. So it could be 3 oppose [16:53:08] It still cant actually pass until at least 6 more users vote [17:15:41] while "No one seen issues with Dmehus" is clearly quite nonsensical since obviously other people have seen issues, comments can't just be struck out because they don't make sense, it's still a vote that counts for the ratio [17:17:39] They can [17:17:58] Well, only if you do the thing Dmehus invented of copying Wikipedia. Dmehus invented a lot weird stuff [17:23:58] Well I personally would disagree with striking comments for permission requests, even if nonsensical. If it was an RfC though while I wouldn't advocate striking it would certainly carry less (if not no) weight in the final outcome [17:50:39] I wouldn’t strike it [17:51:07] Votes are votes, no matter how idiotic the rationale [17:54:45] BrandonWM: Things like this are generally done on the idea of "it's a discussion not a vote", though I personally disagree with it [18:05:10] in this case there's a literal ratio requirement of 50%, so pretty much all non-sock votes do have an effect [18:06:45] which is also why I strongly feel revocations should have the same minimum time requirement as appointments, among other reasons [18:06:50] And there’s your 50% [18:07:01] I changed my vote [18:07:06] and feel shitty about it [18:07:56] we're 70-75% of the way towards 20 votes already, and we haven't even had time for Doug to give a proper response [18:08:54] There have already been multiple commitments to improve and failed, for over a year. I don't think there's any response that would change anything [18:10:15] I think it's fair to want to wait for a response before voting [18:10:50] Okay, I'll wait for a response then still support [18:14:39] I don't doubt that but I'm just saying it's not absurd for some users to want to wait for one [18:18:11] Very understandable to want to give dhemus a chance to speak [18:18:48] s/dhemus/dmehus [18:18:49] Sario meant to say: Very understandable to want to give dmehus a chance to speak [18:19:37] Yes I think a response and statement is warranted [18:19:53] to not give the defendant a chance to speak would be unacceptable [18:21:27] I never said they weren't given a chance to speak. They are free to do so at any time [18:27:34] Someone who has contact info for Dmehus, letting them know that all this is going on would be apprecisfed [18:27:48] ive let them know on discord, irc, talk page, and email [18:27:52] They've already been notified several times, they will see it once ready [18:27:57] but if he doesn’t check those venues there’s nothing I can di [18:28:14] If they don't check the talk page then they probably shouldn't be a steward [18:28:23] [discord] I'm sure we'll hear from him this week [18:35:27] Naleksuh: you are literally looking for every possible reason to remove him [18:38:28] No one is looking for a reason [18:38:43] He got on an email from me yesterday anyway asking him to sort something [18:48:55] BrandonWM : I need not look to find them [19:31:04] BrandonWM: part of being a steward is regularly checking talk pages, PMs/DMs, etc. If dmehus isn't doing that, then that's his bad. [19:45:30] Sario : Stop looking for reasons to remove him [19:45:30] So I assume that John and Void should be demoted as well because they are inactive? [19:45:44] Because it's not like there is a discussion on removal or anything [19:45:51] there is an inactivity policy for a reason [19:45:55] BrandonWM: uh, no? [19:46:02] that's not what anyone said here [19:46:05] BrandonWM : John and Void don't show up, cause problems, then go inactive once questions [19:46:12] BrandonWM: if they meet the inactivity criteria, then you are free to request that [19:46:26] the inactivity criteria being *no edits/log actions* in 6 months [19:46:35] my point is we shouldn’t request that [19:46:41] We can't expect unreasonable activity unfortunately, this is a volunteer project after all [19:46:49] yeah [19:46:51] We absolutely should request accountability [19:47:06] Dmehus was in and out before this entire mess [19:47:06] but that's not the main reason why people are voting to revoke Doug [19:47:16] Yes I know [19:47:28] I'm not sure what your point is then [19:47:45] "this entire mess" spans over a year, so no I don't agree [19:48:02] What I’m saying is his not being able to check his talk page is not because of accountability questions [19:48:24] he was in and out before John left that message on his tp [19:52:15] Reception123: what all did wiki managers actually do? [19:53:32] BrandonWM> So I assume that John and Void should be demoted as well because they are inactive? [19:54:02] I actually read the wikis fairly often (multiple per day) and am responsive when needed. [19:54:50] chrs: in practice not much, but in theory the group has 'managewiki' rights [19:55:18] so they could potentially reopen wikis and even close them but that would have to be allowed by RfC [19:56:08] JohnLewis: I’m aware of that but I’m speaking relatively, you’re not as active for regular steward matters as raidarr [19:56:29] Reception123: Is the Wiki Manager group even used anymore [19:56:36] well different stewards do different things [19:56:42] John has closed most of Miraheze's RfCs for example [19:56:44] If activity was the only issue, there wouldn't be an issue. [19:56:58] [discord] A very prominent matter is cu/investigation, which are not really John's field [19:57:21] [discord] I've otherwise found him reasonably present when urgent [19:57:22] But dmehus's inactivity is a compounding factor to his other problems [19:57:23] and has always been around to deal with community matters [19:57:30] I really don't see how one can say John is inactive [19:57:45] I’m not as regular in the sense of what raidarr does, but I give him a lot of advise, I deal with a lot of complex and controversial situations, I don’t do CU investigations as much as I used to, but I am highly skilled in that area and will happily handle complex ones if asked. [19:58:16] I’m not super present and visible but in active in the background and when needed, can be very active in the public eye [19:58:24] [discord] Might take you on that for some fringe cases [19:59:06] [discord] In a few weeks I'd also like to give a steward/community meeting a go [19:59:09] BrandonWM: wiki manager is a historical group [19:59:33] chrs: Yeah, I had never heard of it before which is why I was confused [19:59:54] radiarr: Personally I think that would be good [20:00:03] [discord] Wiki manager might be a path to try and offload/mitigate steward-only business [20:00:24] Clearly there’s not a lot of faith in a certain steward right now so we need to probably boost confidence [20:00:26] though either way my view is that global renamer is way too niche [20:00:39] we could try and compound it supposedly [20:00:49] call it Global Manager or something [20:00:52] [discord] Yeah, that's not a solid solution imo [20:01:08] [discord] G-renamer that is [20:01:26] Managewiki perms + rename and maybe close RfC/RfP [20:01:40] I don’t know if that’d be too much though [20:01:42] closing RfP's is based on having the ability to assign rights [20:01:54] wouldn't be that [20:02:12] I would love to see a more defined "path" from regular vol to Steward. I think we currently lack a good way for new vols to build trust with the community. [20:02:30] definitely not close RfC [20:02:36] yeah no [20:02:42] that's one of the most complex things that I would only trust Stewards with [20:03:02] closing stuff is very different from the mostly-routine thing that is renames/reopening requests [20:03:24] definitely [20:03:35] Theoretically we could have this global manager be able to change wiki subdomains as well [20:03:55] no, only sysadmins can do that [20:04:00] I believe that requires sysadmins to do config changes, so that wouldn't work [20:04:00] JohnLewis: since your here, what Steward activities do you think could be handled by a lower level perm group? [20:04:26] Yeah actually JohnLewis would be the perfect one to answer + raidarr [20:04:34] raidarr you still around? [20:05:27]