User talk:99of9

Welcome to Meta!

Hello 99of9, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

mickit 07:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Global edit interface

Hi 99of9, just a remind that the global edit interface rights which were granted to you last year are scheduled to expire on 9 July 2013. So if you still have a need and/or willingness to hold these rights, please make a request for renewal on Steward requests/Global permissions. Best regards, --MF-W 14:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics

Idea Lab

Idea Lab

Hello, 99of9! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)

Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:

• Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
• Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
• Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC

Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list

Global editinterface

Hey 99of9, please note that your global editinterface rights expire in a couple of days. Please start a new vote on SRGP to retain them. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.

• Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
• Letter on change.org

I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a babel

As you are applying for a global renamer right, would you mind adding a Extension:Babel code in the form ... {{#babel:xx|xx1|..|xxn}} to your user page. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Global rename rights

I have closed your nomination for global renamer right as successful, and applied that right.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Mailing list for global renamers

Dear global renamer,

We have created a mailing list for us to allow easy communication. Please subscribe here and send me or Trijnstel an email to confirm it is you requesting it. Additionally, you might be interested to know of the existance of the #wikimedia-rename^connect IRC channel where you are welcome to join. Should you have any questions, feel free to use my talk page.

Cordially, Savh^ñ 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Rename me

Rename me to f269c7e45bbfaf6d

Please make this request at: Steward_requests/Username_changes. --99of9 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No renaming between November 20 and November 27

Hi,

You’re getting this because you’re a steward or global renamer. The Community Tech team are working on cross-wiki watchlists. We need to add a couple of fields to the localuser table in centralauth database. In order to be able to do this, we’d need to run a script that will get in the way of renaming users. Our apologies – we realize this is getting in the way of your work.

We ask that you do not rename anyone between 00:00 November 20 (UTC) and 00:00 November 27 (UTC).

(UTC means that if you live in the Americas, it will be on the evening or afternoon of November 19 when the script starts running, and if you live in Oceania or eastern Asia, it can be closer midday on November 27 before we can be sure the script is no longer running.)

Phabricator task.

If there are any problems related to this, or you have any questions, please write me on my talk page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Rename

hi rename my name to Σχερ ΑζιζSher Aziz (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sher Aziz: Please make this request at: Steward_requests/Username_changes. --99of9 (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Renamer rights

Hello 99of9, I've removed your global renamer rights due to inactivity. Thanks for your past help in this area. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ajraddatz: Ha, this occurred less than a day after I started processing a couple of name change requests. But it's ok, I've never been very active since they went global. --99of9 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the policy specifically requires renaming actions to keep the permissions. I don't see this as incredibly useful, but hey, that's what is written down. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A few notes

I could comment by mail, but I choose to keep this communication in the open.

especially by those of us who can't see the evidence

Everyone can see the "evidence". There is no nonpublic information involved. I know the checkusers are suggesting otherwise, but it's not true. T&S is investigating.

It also seemed that the (even incomplete) discussion would not lead to clear desysop consensus.

This is a collective misinterpretation of policy. Jcb tried to weasel out of a desysop on c:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 2) with that and Rd232 said it best there:

Taken literally, that badly worded and vague policy requires an informal deadmin discussion hardly less voluminous and unpleasant than the formal one, in order to establish consensus for launching the formal one. The spirit of that policy is clearly to ensure that there is discussion of issues before launching into a deadmin procedure. You can't say that hasn't happened, given the prior deadmin discussion and discussions around the place as well directly with you. If that policy means anything, it's that frivolous requests may be swiftly shut down by bureaucrats. (bold mine)

That policy shouldn't be taken literally.

Whether a discussion was prematurely closed and should be reopened is orders of magnitude less important than losing admins.

Closing the discussion like an autocrat was wrong. Even if the outcome is already clear (for example when discussing an office action), no admin should shut down a discussion about it. Magog shut it down because he was not open for negotiation on this one. Open a desysop discussion on me if you must. He shut down the discussion out of disrespect for the community, he was in fear that the community might not agree with him.

Rollback abuse to keep the thread closed and blocking 1989 to stop them from reopening the thread, I have a hard time imagining a credible apology for that. But we don't even have to try, Magog hasn't apologized for anything. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 07:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)