Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Danke an alle, thanks to all, but talking about "transparency": IMHO it would have been better to install ONE systemwide account with ONE name that is explained at ONE place, e.g. here on meta! On a first glance it looks as if there are still five admins on wikiquote whereas there are only four human admins! Or create a new class of user, something like a hybrid of "steward" and "bot" that is allowed to perform the desired action but openly shows that is a system generated user! a×pdeHello! 06:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
That might be an option but we (stewards) are not the one who made the headache of Abusefilter accounts. You probably should contact developers. — regards, Revi 07:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The following request is closed: As the CheckUser rights have now been given to Tuga1143, I suggest we close this discussion. Trijnsteltalk 21:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Stewards, I would like to know how to make a formal request about this case: I would like to request the sharing of the information from this case with the CUs of the Pt.Wiki, since this is about a decision of our community. Independent of @Tuga1143: authorization.
I would also like to know how to create a motion of mistrust so that one Steward does not participate in discussions on this case, since he is involved in the problem and could not be impartial. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like to say that I allow the sharing of any personal information, regarding my person, to the CUs of the Pt.Wiki. Additionally, I myself would like to see that information (if possible on my email), because I didn't knew there was any kind of problem regarding my person... if there is, I would like to defend myself and give you my point of view, for I believe everyone has the right to defend itself. Thank you. Tuga1143 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Taking into account the authorization of @Tuga1143: and: 1) it is a subject that concerns the pt.wiki; 2) this is the decision of our community about CUs for our community; and 3) all CUs have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information; it is my opinion and I request the sharing of the information about the case with the CUs, as well the sharing of discussions with the pt.wiki CUs. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this seems to be a parallel process to the decisions taken by the community of pt.wiki. I repudiate the way this is happening, in an obscure way and without any opportunity for questioning, and endorse the words of Felipe da Fonseca. --HVLtalk 01:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, apologies for the lack of communication from us. This request has been subject to internal discussion, but transparency is a requirement in steward policies so I'll give some context here. Concerns have been raised about previous allegations made against Tuga1143, and about the suppression of revisions from Tuga1143's last RfCU on ptwiki. As these concerns relate to now-suppressed revisions, I cannot say more about them - this is also one of the reasons why discussion on this has happened in private prior to now. If local oversighters from ptwiki are comfortable talking about the nature of the suppressed edits then we can discuss the specifics more. My own opinion is that these concerns should be a matter for the ptwiki community to decide, and that we should not be holding the request. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I think the whole pt.wiki knows about this issue, as it has been debated for a long time in the last year, and the discussions could not be more clearer about what the community thinks about it; the user who denounced the "case" is partially banned since that time because of his abusive behavior. This "on hold" status makes no sense at all. The pt.wiki should have the right to choose its own CUs. Érico(talk) 03:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Ajraddatz, thank you for the information. Below will follow the requests rewritten with more time. I urge you and the other stewards to judge it. I also remember that @Tuga1143: has just (above) authorized the sharing of information with the CUs. @Stanglavine:. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
My comments as oversighter: The first request of Tuga1143 has reached high visibility at the time when was not suppressed. A lot of members of community has participated of the discussions envolving the “controversy”, and the discussions was been available to all. Just, recently, he requested the oversight on that RfCU and on the block discussion, which was supressed after an discussion between the three oversighters. So, once that pt.wiki has seen all of discussion about the “concerning” and decided, again, to vote and elect Tuga as CU, I think that community has taken care about this. EVinente (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I share Ajraddatz's views here and I'm going to promote Tuga1143 after I finish to write this. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the approval. Although the request has bees approved, I still would like to know (if possible via e-mail) what's going on. I would like, as well, for the Pt.Wiki CUs to have access to whatever happened and, if necessary, I authorize the Pt.Wiki Oversights to share the suppressed content with the CUs. Tuga1143 (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I will not go into detail, but this is my comment as oversight: we received in private a request that we review the history of some pages in pt.wikipedia. After reviewing and hearing the other two oversights' opinions, I deleted the applicable excerpts in accordance with the supress policy and supressed the issues. I can not speak publicly about suppressed content for obvious reasons, but you as stewards have access to edits and can check. If you need help, just contact me privately. Regards, Stanglavine (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Stewards, as I do not master the norms of the Metawiki, I request from you - as judges constituted from this demand - that you follow the maximum legal principle Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius. I request:
1) In analogy with the principle of the Self-determination consolidated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and since it is a choice of wiki.pt and for wiki.pt, I request that the autonomy of our comunity choice be respected and the request be approved immediately;
2) If for any reason you deny this fundamental right that is also a praxis in the WMF, I request that the case be immediately opened for the CUs of wiki.pt and the defendant is given the possibility of defence. As the Stewards are not in the day-to-day in the pt.wiki and since they do not speak Portuguese, they are unable to have a complete view of the case. Thus, if one or only a few Brazilian Stewards give their versions, they may not accurately reflect the reality. Legal Principle: Open court principle
3) I have proves (in the pages of the pt.wiki) that a Brazilian Steward is involved personally and emotionally with the case, I request that he should be prevented from evaluating, opining and judging everything concerning the @Tuga1143:. I still request space to provide the name and the evidence. Legal Principle: Impartiality.
You can really never know - unless we get support behind phab:T209749 that is! Looks like it has been stalled waiting for Trust and Safety for a while, if anyone has someone to poke over there that might help. Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk 12:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Aldnonymous, thanks for pigging me. I would suggest to send a request to cawikimedia.org. This way, the question will receive more visibility and the Trust & Safety team will be able to look into it more closely. Cheers -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I requested administrator access for permanently, not only for 6 months in Zazaki Wikipedia. The community voted it as permanently, achieved consensus to make me admin permanently. Because there is no active admin in Zazaki Wikipedia. May you correct it please?. Best regards. Vuzorg (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Please submit global block appeals to SRG or via email. Please be sure to mention which IP, IP range or account are you asking about. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Request bots link
I added a request here using the standard markup and see that it inserted "no standard bot policy." Why is the text struck out and linked to a meta page when we have an approved v:Wikiversity:Bots policy? Is there some template that needs to be updated? --mikeutalk 22:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Global Block 2
A message tells me because of a global block of my IP range by Graham87 in effect until 10:52, 17 May 2022 I can't edit wikipedia, and I see this message again, when I try to follow its instruction for how to create an account to get around it. I doubt this page is quite where to mention this problem, and I don't even know if I'm typing this in correctly, but it's the best guess I could come to after maybe an hour of searching. This seems more like vandalism than protection, a years-long global block against doing anything for a whole range of IP address. If I'm not understanding the situation correctly, then make this website intelligible, people! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owiker (talk)
But you created this account a few hours ago, doe that mean the issue is resolved? Are you able to edit other projects with the account? – Ammarpad (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)