Project:Requests for permissions/Xaosflux

User: Xaosflux

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Requested user-rights: Administrator.

Xaosflux (talk • contribs • logs • rights • global account)

Mostly for processing occasional user local IPBE requests we get in the stewards VRT system when that would be the most appropriate way to handle a situation. Xaosflux (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a steward! You can just give yourself the rights? Justman10000 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards don't act on local projects that have working community governance processes. While I could use my overlapping access with the GS group here per the statement allowing it above, assigning groups to other users is not within the GS scope. Xaosflux (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The header at the top of this page says Other users in specialised global groups (such as global interface editors) are also free to use their rights on this wiki by default. I think that's clear in that you are welcome to use your steward/GS/etc. access to process IPBE requests. If you want to be an admin here I support that too, but I don't think it's necessary. Legoktm (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with Xaosflux being an admin here, but I find it surprising that a wiki with only active 15 non-anon-only IP blocks gets enough local IPBE requests to warrant this. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was going to say "just use your steward rights here" but then for local IPBE requests you need access to Special:UserRights which the global sysop toolkit doesn't allow. Also Pppery's comment is valid, as I never had to process a local IPBE request on this wiki. Leaderboard (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use case is generally someone with a fairly low xwiki footprint wants to edit here, but is hitting a global block. Yes, there is a suite of options, but in some cases a local exemption seems to be the most appropriate way to help an editor along. Sometimes we fix the problem with GIPBE grants which can be overkill. From a purely technical perspective stewards can issue local IPBE here via the central project, but for multiple reasons we won't do that (especially related to transparency and respect of local governance). Xaosflux (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That process doesn't make any sense to me. If someone qualifies to be exempted from a global block shouldn't they qualify to be exempted from it everywhere? And if that is the process stewards want to use for some reason it would make more sense to codify it by adding a local "exempt from global blocks" group on every WMF wiki with the expectation that stewards rather than local admins grant it. I'm sure Xaosflux will do fine as an admin here, but the processes involved are bizarre. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: "If someone qualifies to be exempted from a global block shouldn't they qualify to be exempted from it everywhere" - usually my experience is that if it's only for one or two wikis, the stewards tend to prefer local IPBE instead. And to be fair, "local "exempt from global blocks" group" is IPBE, though I think it's OK if we update the policy explicitly allowing stewards to use Special:UserRights. Leaderboard (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between my proposed group and the existing IPBE group is that the latter also exempts people from local blocks. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really more for edge cases, where it appears someone may claim to want to do something like some translation work on one project but they are not really very established elsewhere. I'm likely the largest responder to the stewards VRT queue where we get the edge types of requests. Of course, if conceptually mw: never wants to exempt users from blocks locally I'd support those wishes.

@Leaderboard we almost always prefer to keep logs local so communities can easily tell what happened and why, and we can't use userrights locally unless we give ourselves steward locally - and we only do that for very odd edge cases (such as if the group doesn't exist on metawiki). Xaosflux (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: , would there ever be a case where we want to exempt people from global but not local IP blocks? It's not like this is en.wiki... and I understand Xaosflux's point. Leaderboard (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what global IP block exempt does. To be clear I have no objection to Xaosflux becoming an admin and granting local IPBE, and am just providing general feedback on how the process works. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what we do sometimes -- but sometimes for fairly new users we won't grant GIPBE until they get a bit more established - these are normally proxy users who have a plausible, but weak claim. Xaosflux (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: can you action this one? Leaderboard (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this request, but haven't actioned it because I'd prefer more discussion from the community (particularly other admins) about the use case --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If Xaos thinks having local +sysop here would be useful I have no objections to granting that, although I also wouldn't mind if stewards just used their current technical access per the "Other users in specialised global groups ([...]) are also free to use their rights on this wiki by default." clause on Project:Requests for permissions. Taavi (talk!) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No objections either. --Clump (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Although personally it would seem easier for the end user to grant GIPBE instead, but census exists for the requested userright to be granted. P858snake (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]