[06:18:27] Would a phab admin delete the spam in the comments of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T314912 ? [06:19:49] ugh, i really need 2fa for this :( [06:20:16] yea, unfortunately [06:20:33] And i guess phab and my phones clock is not synchronized, so it is making me try again [06:21:42] and a new code for each comment :( [06:22:02] Yes, Phab and vandalism clean up is apparently not that fun [06:22:22] its a good thing they only made 2 comments, otherwise i would pretend not to be on irc ;) [06:22:46] JJMC89: done :) [06:22:53] thanks, bawolff [06:23:59] JJMC89: i've blocked them on mwwiki as well, I personally recommend doing that as well when you use phabban so that it shows in CA encase they decide wikis will be the next fun grounds [06:24:42] I'm not an admin on mwwiki or I would [06:33:14] JJMC89: Do you want to be? [06:36:22] bawolff: I guess it would be occasionally useful, so sure. Should I file a request? [06:36:52] You have enough commits you can get it for free [06:37:51] JJMC89: done [06:38:09] thanks, bawolff [06:38:11] Rule on mediawiki.org, is you can basically be an admin just by asking if you have done dev work [06:39:57] provided you aren't super controversial or anything [06:40:45] Access to deleted content requires RfA now [06:41:14] we really need to fix the mwwiki documentation about that [06:41:24] hmm, well too late ;) [06:41:50] I already had access to deleted content anyway :) [06:43:39] Hmm, you are a sysop on enwiki. If you managed to get through that crucible, you're probably better than most ;) [06:44:38] p858snake: The rule does seem a tad outdated. I'm not sure I would neccesarily want every single person who has changed 100 lines in some mediawiki extension (maybe their own) to have sysop [06:45:00] Should at least be a wikimedia deployed extension [06:45:21] that figure was randomly picked by tim s iirc [06:45:40] yeah, after the fram stuff i believe [06:46:20] yes [06:46:20] I wonder if that was pre-gerrit. getting 100 lines in in the svn days probably also meant you had commit access, which was a decently high bar [06:51:46] Where is the policy that requires RfA for access to deleted content? [06:54:17] This refers to some of it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_deleted_content [07:01:34] I doubt mediawikiwiki poses the same risk [07:01:54] Because it's mostly technical docs and discussions [07:02:08] not articles that are likely to cause copyright issues and such [07:24:29] I do think 100 lines is too low though. At least if changing an existing line counts as one insertion and one deletion, I would have qualified as a "developer" after little more than one month. [07:24:53] mediawiki/core (master)$ git show --ignore-all-space --shortstat 72c33b4523c98673087cc2cdb435141533c16723 [07:25:01] mediawiki/core (master)$ git log --ignore-all-space --no-merges --pretty=reference --reverse --shortstat --author=pleasestand [07:25:30] I personally think having +2 in some WMF deployed repo, would be a reasonable bar [07:25:38] although that's much higher [07:33:46] Perhaps it should still be a requirement though to at least ask on-wiki if you want sysop access? [07:34:15] I was given sysop access there in 2014. I don't have it anymore because it was removed for inactivity. [07:35:04] I never did perform a single logged administrative action. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=PleaseStand&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers [07:35:12] I certainly think you can have it back anytime you want, you more than qualify [07:37:16] we should probably just ditch all the requirements and list them as examples as to why we might approve, and then just have "File a RfA and wait X hours" which would align with the WMF requirements for a RfA like process [07:37:45] And the irc cabal dies with whimper [07:40:23] the cabal would just need to wait 24 hrs or whatever