This page hosts requests for global permissions. To make a request, read the relevant policy (global rollback, global sysop) and make a request below. Explain why membership is needed for that group, and detail prior experience or qualifications. This is not a vote and any active Wikimedia editor may participate in the discussion, though only stewards may use {{yes}} or {{no}} templates.
Please note that Global rollbackers discussions are not votes. Comments must present specific points in favor of or against a user's approval.
Instructions for making a request
Before requesting, make sure that:
You have sufficient activity to meet the requirements to be allocated the global rollback flag
To make a request
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain of why you need the access and why you're suitable.
=== Global rollback for {{subst:u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ===
{{sr-request
|status = <!-- don't change this line -->
|domain = global <!-- don't change this line -->
|user name = {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} <!-- don't change this line unless you're nominating another user -->
}}
::''Not ending before {{subst:#time:j F Y H:i|+5 days}} UTC''
The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a period of consideration of no less than 5 days (with rare exceptions, no matter how obvious the result may seem). This is not a vote, and all input is welcome. Stewards will determine whether consensus exists; when doing so it is likely that the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential.
Hello. I am active in SWMT for five months.
If there is Global rollback, I think that I can do revert of a large quantity of vandalism efficiently quickly. Therefore I want Global rollback flag. Thank you in advance. --Hosiryuhosi01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you give someone global sysop rights, please list them on [[<tvar name="T:GS">Template:List of global sysops</tvar>|Users with global sysop access]] and ask them to subscribe to the [[<tvar name="2">mail:global-sysops</tvar>|global sysops mailing list]].</translate>
Please note that Global sysops discussions are not votes. Comments must present specific points in favor of or against a user's approval.
<translate>
Instructions for making a request</translate>
You are logged in on this wiki, and the account is part of your global account;
To make a request
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain of why you need the access and why you're suitable. If you previously requested that right, please add a link to the previous discussion(s).</translate>
=== Global sysop for {{subst:u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ===
{{sr-request
|status = <!-- don't change this line -->
|domain = global <!-- don't change this line -->
|user name = {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} <!-- don't change this line unless you're nominating another user -->
}}
:''Not ending before {{subst:#time:j F Y H:i|+2 week}} UTC''
<translate>
The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a period of consideration of no less than two weeks (no exceptions are allowed no matter how obvious the result may seem). This is not a vote, and all input is welcome. Stewards will determine whether consensus exists; when doing so it is likely that the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential. Please note: Since 2019 all global sysops are required to have two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled.</translate>
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hello! I am asking for the global sysop flag. I am an active checkuser, crat and oversighter on the Simple English Wikipedia and am often involved in the finding and blocking of crosswiki vandals and crosswiki sockpuppets. I also monitor #cvn-sw and am an active member of the SWMT. I tag pages on small wikis for speedy deletion and IIRC I have not had one turned down. I also revert obvious vandalism when I see it, (well as obvious as Google Translate can make it). I consider myself to be an admin who reflects before I act; but when I act I do so without fear and firmly. I feel I have a good working relationship with the stewards, the global admins and the other checkusers. It is my desire to further serve the WMF comunity by protecting my favourite type of wiki, the small wiki. fr33kmant - c06:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd counter that I actually have a high cross-wiki activity, but have tended to ask other people to perform actions that I can't do because I've got no ability to do them: often asking for help from others via IRC. As a checkuser, I get into cross-wiki activities all the time that never show up on my contribs. I have often found myself needing to perform an action, but unable to do so. I'm asking for global sysop so I can act, rather than asking someone else to. fr33kmant - c12:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll Support, because you seem to have a good reason to request it. But you aren't as activ in the SWMT as you told us above (from my point of view) - Hoo man12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Active in SWMT not only means reverting and tagging edits for deletion, it also means reviewing them and deciding there is no need for action. I revert when it is right, tag for deletion when needed and do nothing when it is correct to do so. fr33kmant - c11:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unfortunately, there's no record of such activity. That's why it seems some people resort to tagging for the sake of creating a record. I'm glad you're not one of them. Seb az8655612:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If no action is needed, that's a good thing: it doesn't mean the watcher is not active, just that they have nothing to do. 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I know that theres no log for that kind of actions, but if you really do that regularly you would have more reverts. I'm doing it myself for a few weeks now and I'm frequently coming over vandalism. - Hoo man15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please note that this is not a bad-faith vote. While I may have a conflict of interest, the diffs I provide are open to interpretation and speak for themselves. 1) Failure to assume good faith — Blocked user after CU confirmed that s/he vandalized under IPs. A cursory glance at user's edits reveals nothing vandalistic. 2) Declined unblock from a user he blocked. Does not comprehend the involved policy. The purpose of an unblock request is to obtain a second opinion, not for the blocking admin to decline it. Most admins are bound to decline an unblock from someone whom they blocked because they don't want to admit error. 3) Prone to pursue whims: unblocked user after a patronising decline message. The user did not request unblock again, but merely asked "Is this block permanent??" Fr33kman arbitrarily unblocks the user. Not firm about the decline. It is also important to note that Fr33kman reported the user "to all the other checkusers and the stewards so that checks of you can be done on the other projects". Such actions are too extreme for what the user did. 4) Prone to hold grudges — see here. 4) That the next diffs came from a discussion about me is irrelevent. Regardless of the circumstance, the sentiments expressed are alarming. In this and this, Fr33kman is more concerned with who is "winning" and who is being made to look like "idiots" than what is best for the project. As the only oppose, I hope that the closing bureaucrat places the appropriate weight to my words. Again, I'm putting these diffs up for scrutinising so that the community can evaluate them and to ensure the best for this project. Note that I did not mention anything that Fr33kman did to me. Codedon21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to request global sysop status. I have been steward for some years, and recently resigned because I dont think I am actively enough using those tools to justify the access to privacy related data (such as checkuser, oversight etc). Currently I am sysop and bureaucrat on nlwiki and sysop on a few smaller wikis. While working on OTRS however, it is highly useful to be able to view deleted entries and give people an explanation on why something got deleted or what happened to a page. I might help out when there is need to for crosswiki work - but I'll be fair in saying I dont think that will be the main use for this tool. I will not use it dayly, but it would definitely be useful, and I think that considering my experience as a steward, I can be trusted not to use them foolishly. Effeietsanders13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are logged in on this wiki, and the account is part of your global account;
To request global editinterface permissions
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain why you need the access. If needed, link to relevant discussions.
=== Global editinterface for [[user:Foo|Foo]] ===
{{sr-request
|status = <!--don't change this line-->
|domain = global<!--don't change this line-->
|user name =
|discussion=
}}
<Add an explanation here>, thanks, --~~~~
The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a short period of consideration. A steward will review the request.
None currently
Requests for global IP block exemption
Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Your request might be rejected if you don't follow the instructions, and not doing so would reflect poorly on your suitability.
You are logged in on this wiki, and the account is part of your global account;
To request global IP block exemption
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain why you need the access and why you're suitable. If needed, link to relevant discussions.
=== Global IP block exempt for [[user:Foo|Foo]] ===
{{sr-request
|status = <!--don't change this line-->
|domain = global<!--don't change this line-->
|user name =
|discussion=
}}
<Add an explanation here>, thanks, --~~~~
The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a short period of consideration (typically 5 days). This is not a vote, and all input is welcome. Stewards will determine whether consensus exists; when doing so it is likely that the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential.
Support --Jyothis 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Neutral low cross wiki activity, but trusted - Hoo man 11:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Please note that this is not a bad-faith vote. While I may have a conflict of interest, the diffs I provide are open to interpretation and speak for themselves. 1) Failure to assume good faith — Blocked user after CU confirmed that s/he vandalized under IPs. A cursory glance at user's edits reveals nothing vandalistic. 2) Declined unblock from a user he blocked. Does not comprehend the involved policy. The purpose of an unblock request is to obtain a second opinion, not for the blocking admin to decline it. Most admins are bound to decline an unblock from someone whom they blocked because they don't want to admit error. 3) Prone to pursue whims: unblocked user after a patronising decline message. The user did not request unblock again, but merely asked "Is this block permanent??" Fr33kman arbitrarily unblocks the user. Not firm about the decline. It is also important to note that Fr33kman reported the user "to all the other checkusers and the stewards so that checks of you can be done on the other projects". Such actions are too extreme for what the user did. 4) Prone to hold grudges — see here. 4) That the next diffs came from a discussion about me is irrelevent. Regardless of the circumstance, the sentiments expressed are alarming. In this and this, Fr33kman is more concerned with who is "winning" and who is being made to look like "idiots" than what is best for the project.
Done - promoted. --dferg ☎ talk 14:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
