Ktr101

Please comment

Please comment at Talk:Wikipedia Regional Ambassadors#Kevin Gorman in California. --Pine^✉ 22:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

New messages

2.7em

You have new messages on my talk page.

Mono (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Spambot

Hi. Could you kindly block this spambot pattern? It might be blocked globally, but it seems it has no SUL. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! I also just gave you administrator rights so that you can deal with other spambots in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind of you. But what do you think about opting in from GS-Wikis so that global sysops would be allowed to deal with spammers by themselves? Maybe it could be interesting for you :-) --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 13:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What do mean opting in? The accounts here can already be globally locked by the stewards, so I'm wondering if that is what you meant by your statement. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I was referring to another thing. According to this list, outreachwiki doesn't belong to the GS-Wikis. That means Global Sysops cannot perform blocks and deletions here (this is not valid for stewards, they in fact have admin access everywhere). If this Wiki were opted in of GS-Wikis, they could do admin actions on this Wiki. Global Sysops are SWMT members who can perform admin operations on small wikis in order to prevent any kind of vandalism/spam/abuse. Hence, since I see you are used to granting admin right to lots of trusted, my suggestion is to let GSs perform admin action on this wiki too. But that's absolutely your choice :-) --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 20:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, how would we go about doing that? Also, some people have preferred that we admin trusted users (i.e. how I got 'crat rights in a day), since there is little potential for harm. On the flip side, it can also mean that if you screw up, you get your rights pulled immediately. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually GSs are very trusted users so it's a bit difficult to find someone misusing the tools. They specifically are used to dealing with spammers, so, in my opinion, outreachwiki would just benefit from having them. To opt in of GS, you just need to reach a consensus, with other users' opinions, on the Village pump. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 11:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Sysop request

Hi! Can you please sysop User:MF-Warburg, a steward? --Rschen7754 01:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rschen7754 01:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Spambot blocks

Hi! I noticed that you're only blocking spambots for 92 days - shouldn't they be indefinite, if the stewards don't lock? --Rschen7754 20:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying something out: Rather than having a bunch of blocked accounts on the site, I'm wondering if they will come back. A few of them already have never edited, but I am more than willing to block them indefinitely should you think that it would be wiser. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's probably best to leave them indefinitely blocked, just in case, though locking usually makes it moot. --Rschen7754 04:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the VP, I block spambots for 6 months. Can we discuss this there so more people can participate in this discussion? Village_pump#Spam, blocks, and due process--Pine^✉ 22:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem with that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you recently unblocked another spammer. I wanted to bring this up because I always thought local blocks should also be applied after global locks so as to have the autoblock on the underlying IP prevent more spam accounts. Perhaps I'm wrong, and this is contrary to current policy. Could you give me guidance as to what blocks I should implement in the future? Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a good question. Since we're such a small wiki, I often hand out really short blocks, because I know that the likelihood of a spammer returning is under one percent. Because of that, I really don't think that local blocks are worth it, because I doubt that they would end up even coming back to begin with, especially since they would have to be incredibly persistent to do so, and that could be easily dealt with if we noticed a pattern. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

TA

Hi! Could you please give translationadmin to User:Vogone? He's a global sysop and translation admin elsewhere, and has expressed interest in helping with translations. --Rschen7754 23:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rschen7754 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look onto Wikimedia:Village_pump#Where_to_ask_for_translation_permissions too, please. --Base (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Could you please either grant translateadmin flag to user:Kaganer, who is one of most experienced TA in other wikis, or grant a 'crat flag to me to let me done it on my own. Thank you in advance for any of above. --Base (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and gave them the rights. At this time, I am a bit hesitant to give anyone bureaucrat rights unless they have a good depth of experience on the sites that they are mainly active in, are administrators on other sites, or are part of the education project. Also, this is concerning to me, as we are a tiny project, and hostility of any kind is not tolerated here. I do think I will go ahead and create a Request for Permissions page in the future, so we can have others helping out with this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, in general I don't mind just be ready for such requests from me at your TP :P but i'll try to show my POV, sorry if it's too long post. Actualy crat rights are mostly for giving flags for others so actualy I don't understand a connection between what you say and crat flag. Well a content wiki where I realy like to work in is Ukrainian Wikinews and I'm a sysop there. Actualy a crat flag is not a big deal but i want to ask about sysop flags in here - i think we should or give it to all trusted nonspambots or remove it from 200+ sysops with no logged actions performed. About this categories - perhaps I sounded rude but that not the thing I wanted to sound like. I just sure that all pages should be at least in any category. It at least will help to find useless outdated housekeeping and other things but now I see that this my POV should be discussed. I'm going to start a topic about it at the VP some days later. P.S. Do you have irc/icq/googletalk or at least fb? I suffer of not having #wikimedia-outreach to ask for opinions. Now I want to speak about abusefilters in here. --Base (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My issue is that we already have more bureaucrats on this site than we do on Wikipedia, and we have a lot less activity. At this point, we've already had one user who has thrown a fit before over something he did (see the Village Pump) and then ragequit, so experience is something we look for before granting rights to others. If you stay here and continue to edit without problems, I'll have no problem giving you the rights, but I guess the cliche of "with great power comes great responsibility," applies here. In terms of categories, it wouldn't be a bad idea, as we're a small Wiki and we have been able to get away with many things that would get you banned on the main Wikipedia, like blatant copyright violations of images other things. In terms of social media, I am on Facebook, Google Talk and irc, although I am more active on Facebook more than anything. You may have added me earlier and I didn't know who you were based on the language thing, so feel free to message me, as I have no problem friending Wikimedians. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In the opinion of this admin, we have plenty of crats at this time and until we arrive at the point where there's a clear use for having additional crats I don't think we should be taking unnecessary risk by handing out more crat flags. --Pine^✉ 01:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I've just filed [1] to allow us to remove translationadmin, which apparently we cannot do (even though we can remove crat and sysop...) --Rschen7754 04:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That is awesome, as I assumed that we had some prior policy somewhere that created this rule, although I am glad to see that there was none all along and it was just a bug. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

fyi: I fixed the template. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for delete

Thanks for delete the page 'WikiArS/assignments/title'. I was searching how to ask for deletion because was a failed test. --Dvdgmz (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, as I have given you administrator rights in order to help you in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Filter 13

While Filter 13 catches a lot of spam, I'm starting to notice a lot of false positives - like Special:AbuseLog/1385 and Special:AbuseLog/1380. Not sure what should be done about this... --Rschen7754 09:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That is odd. Has something been brought up on the other sites about this? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jms1984

Hi, User:Jms1984 is not a spambot. Please remove the block on that account. See global contribs here. It was a false positive by the filter 13. Kind regards, --Glaisher (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Y Done since Ktr101 doesn't seem to have edited in a day or two. --Rschen7754 01:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleting old talk pages of anon users

Hey Kevin, I was thinking of trying something out on this wiki based on what the Wiktionary administrators did, which was to delete old talkpages of anonymous IP users. Their reasoning was that new users who switch to the address of an existing talkpage will see the OBOD and their talkpages will be lined with text that are not addressed specifically to them but to another user who once occupied the same IP address. Before I do so however I would like to get your approval first and see if this is a good idea, don't want to risk blowing up the wiki or anything. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I mean, we're only talking about thirty-three pages here. I really don't see an issue with new users appearing on these pages and wondering what is up, but only because we are such a small Wiki that the chances for this are slim to none. If you want to, go right ahead, but I think keeping the pages will be useful just so we can see how we have dealt with past situations. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User rights

Hi Kevin, I notice that you removed my sysop and bureaucrat rights. Can I ask what you're basing that decision on? I'm not too worried about having them, but I would like to have a sense of the evolving practices around user rights on this wiki. The page Wikimedia:Administrators offers no guidance.

For context: we started this wiki when I worked for Frank Schulenburg. Frank felt at the time -- and I strongly agreed -- that it was worthwhile to give out administrator rights pretty freely to those who support the movement, that it didn't make a lot of sense on a wiki like this to create obstacles to strong engagement.

I recognize that things may have changed in the meantime, but I have been unable to find any principles that would justify removing these rights from somebody like me who has had them for a long time, and has (I think) never taken any action with them that has caused any concern. -Pete (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed them off your former work account because you no longer work for the Foundation (as far as I know, and I may be wrong). On -en and other sites, when WMF staff members leave the Foundation, they are indeffed and stripped of all work rights (well, mainly useful on sites like this, since most sites don't hand out 'crat rights to most people). There is no specific policy on this site that I know of, but it's probably in writing somewhere if you wanted me to search for it. You still have rights on your main account, so that was also taken into consideration when I removed them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha, sorry -- I didn't realize that. I got an email notification, and assumed it was related to this account. Thanks for taking care of that! -Pete (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Global renames

User:Steinsplitter, User:Kevin Gorman: as the active non-staff bureaucrats (feel free to ping anyone I missed) - now that we have global renames, what should we do with the renames process? Since this isn't exactly the most active wiki, and requests might be missed, perhaps we should shut the process down and redirect it to meta?

If this should be discussed elsewhere, feel free to move it. --Rschen7754 22:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've found it useful to keep it active here, but only because we can easily take care of someone should they only be registered here. I did move a user in March and am familiar with the process, so I suppose that there is no reason to get rid of it unless they shut it off on us. Besides, we always have operated outside of the rule book, so that could be kept in mind as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. The problem with local renames is that they break the SUL and make it impossible for the global rename tool to work; it's also one more place where global users have to file a request. See further discussions on w:en:WP:BN and m:SN, and note that Commons has started declining requests for simple renames and is sending them to Meta. --Rschen7754 02:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of that issue, as I was had no idea that that those discussions have been occurring. In that case, let's go with that route, although I am not sure we'll have many rename requests in the coming year. When did global rename start, by the way? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

About 2-3 days ago, so it's not like it's been happening for a while :) --Rschen7754 04:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

... This is probably the most exciting note I've had on outreach pretty much ever: yay, we finally have global renames! I can picture exceedingly uncommon situations where a local rename would be preferable to a global rename for this wiki. I'm too tired to do so tonight, but we should be able to disable the use of the local rename tool through something hackish like creating a funky EF or something, right? If so, I'd prefer that over totally getting rid of the functionality if possible, just so local renames are possible if unique situations come up. If there's no easy hack to disable it in a way that is reversible by the purposeful action of a crat who needs to use it for something, I'd rather disable them completely in favor of the global process. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The eventual plan is for WMF to remove the rename capability from bureaucrats, though it is unclear as to the exact timeline. Another option is to only send the simple renames to meta, and keep doing any usurpations or local renames where someone already broke their SUL account here. --Rschen7754 07:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We can add a notice to MediaWiki:renameuser-summary asking to request easy renames on meta but i have no problem to switch it off here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Block?

Many IP ranges from 184.7.8?.?? are vandalising your talk page daily. Why not do a range block or semi-protect your talk page for a while? Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 11:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Steinsplitter already blocked 184.7.82.0/23 for three days, although I suspect that the range is larger and am going to request a checkuser soon, as that won't do much as they can easily go around it.

Sounds good as the IP range has been vandalising for quite a long time already. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 06:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User rights

1. Hi Kevin, I notice that you removed my sysop rights. Can I ask what you're basing that decision on? --Ainali (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

   Hi Ainali (and anyone else who also will ask). I removed your rights per this discussion on the Village pump where no one has objected to cleaning it up, since many of the users haven't edited in years, and no longer have any need for the rights. If you do want to have your rights restored, please let me know, and I will re-add them immediately. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

2. I would like to have mine restored. Sorry I missed the discussion. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

   Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

3. Any chance of having my user rights restored? It's generally a nice thing to do to email people before removing their admin rights. I'm not totally sure what benefit there is in removing my admin rights: if the security of my account were compromised, using the admin bits on outreachwiki would be fairly low on the list of things for an attacker to use compared to some of the other permissions I have on other WMF wikis. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

   Done. I would have like to have e-mailed everyone beforehand, but that would have been impractical when it came to the number of accounts that were involved. My hope is to do it more in the future, but it did help to clear our many accounts which had not seen an edit in four years, or only had one edit to their name. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

4. No need to restore my admin rights, I've hardly posted here for ages. :) The Land (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Thanks for the intimation in my talk page. Please keep in future. May i know, what are the minimum duties to keep the sysop rights?--தகவலுழவன் (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

   No problem! Basically, general consensus on other wikis is to be active, so as long as you are editing here and aren't vandalizing, there is no reason you couldn't have them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   Now i have time for this project (to make many screencasts about commons & ta.wikimedia)and i wish to be an administrator on Outreach--தகவலுழவன் (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@தகவலுழவன்: Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Since I never requested admin rights, and never used them, I don't have any problems with your removing them. John Broughton (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Restore mine as well, please. And it would be more helpful if warning messages were sent prior to rights removal, to give prior notice before enacting a policy change, or a site-wide cleanup. Theo10011 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

   Duly noted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

3. Like John B, I have no need of them.DGG (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
4. I would like to restore my rights. Thanks for the notification Kevin Rutherford! --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

5. Thanks for the message Kevin Rutherford. It is OK, no need to restore my rights. --GlimmerPhoenix (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
6. If it is possible please restore my rights. I know that I have not used them until now but something reminded me that I wanted to organise and clean a series of pages [2][3] that most of them are copies of other pages. It will be easier to make it by deleting pages and not leaving more unuseful redirects. -Geraki (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
7. hello. I would actually prefer keeping those admin rights. Thanks Anthere (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
8. If it's not too late, I would like my rights restored. Thanks. Amqui (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. Done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear Ktr101,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

User:Simon Villeneuve

Please desysop the above user for creating an attack page against users on the French Wikipedia, and full-protecting it, a clear abuse of administrator tools. (I have since indefinitely blocked the user). I'm also leaving a note for Steinsplitter, as this matter is fairly urgent. --Rschen7754 13:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Only fyi: You don't need to restore a page to view the content (example). --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

An, thanks for that, as I knew that there was a way to see that but I always forgot! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Mistake

Please excuse me for my mistake. Im really sorry about this .Regards Grind24 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, as we all make mistakes. Regardless, it wasn't a mistake to ask for rights, but a learning experience that we all go through from time to time. I have made many requests for rights on Wikimedia sites, and have not necessarily been successful each time. What counts is that you learn from the mistakes and come back better prepared the next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right,now i understood the lesson.For the right if no consensus to promote me during 3 Days you can close it as not done.Thanks for your time . With my best Regards -- Grind24 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Recent removal of rights

Could you unprotect my userpage? Marcin Łukasz Kiejzik (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(talkpagestalker) Popped up on my watchlist: done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)