Steward requests/Global permissions: Difference between revisions
→Requests for global rollback permissions: /me blushes |
|||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
*{{support|yay}} [[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] <sup>[[User talk:Diego Grez|return fire]]</sup> 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
*{{support|yay}} [[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] <sup>[[User talk:Diego Grez|return fire]]</sup> 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
*{{support}} Active enough, helpful. –[[User:BRUTE|BruTe]] <sup>[[User talk:BRUTE|talk]]</sup> 05:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
*{{support}} Active enough, helpful. –[[User:BRUTE|BruTe]] <sup>[[User talk:BRUTE|talk]]</sup> 05:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
===Global rollback for [[user:Fr33kman|Fr33kman]]=== |
|||
{{sr-request |
|||
|status = <!-- don't change this line --> |
|||
|domain = global <!-- don't change this line --> |
|||
|user name = Fr33kman |
|||
}} |
|||
Okay, so I didn't realize that global sysop did not come with global rollback (should probably be standard policy to be honest). As such, I am asking for globall rollback also. I've gone to deal with issues on a few sites only to have to use undo because no <nowiki>[[rollback]]</nowiki> appeared. I am a new global sysop, and am active in the small wiki arena mostly. I have rollback on enwiki, & commons and sysop on simplewiki and simplewikt. Cheers! '''''<font color="darkgreen">[[User:Fr33kman|fr33k]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Fr33kman|man]]</font> <sup><font color="darkgreen" size="2">[[User talk:Fr33kman|t]]</font> - <font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Fr33kman|c]]</font></sup>''''' 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Requests for global sysop permissions == |
== Requests for global sysop permissions == |
Revision as of 00:29, 26 July 2010
This is not a vote and any active Wikimedia editor may participate in the discussion, though only stewards may use {{yes}} or {{no}} templates.
Cross-wiki requests |
---|
Meta-Wiki requests |
Requests for global rollback permissions
| Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Global rollback for Hosiryuhosi
- Global user: Hosiryuhosi (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
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. --Hosiryuhosi 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Jyothis 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Diego Grez return fire 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Active enough, helpful. –BruTe talk 05:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Global rollback for Fr33kman
- Global user: Fr33kman (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
Okay, so I didn't realize that global sysop did not come with global rollback (should probably be standard policy to be honest). As such, I am asking for globall rollback also. I've gone to deal with issues on a few sites only to have to use undo because no [[rollback]] appeared. I am a new global sysop, and am active in the small wiki arena mostly. I have rollback on enwiki, & commons and sysop on simplewiki and simplewikt. Cheers! fr33kman t - c 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Requests for global sysop permissions
Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
| <translate>
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Global sysop for Fr33kman
- Global user: Fr33kman (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
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. fr33kman t - c 06:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support obviously James (T C) 06:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Trusted user. Tiptoety talk 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support And, thanks for helping with the small wikis :) --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Of course. --Bsadowski1 07:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Laaknor 07:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Easy decision here. Avicennasis 07:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support; helpful. –BruTe talk 09:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Neutral low cross wiki activity, but trusted - Hoo man 11:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)- 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. fr33kman t - c 12:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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 man 12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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. fr33kman t - c 11:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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 az86556 12:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 az86556 12:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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. fr33kman t - c 11:58, 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 man 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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 man 12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support. NonvocalScream 11:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support —I-20the highway 19:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support ;) Diego Grez return fire 20:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Helpful sysop, can be trusted. Fridae'sDoom 07:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Nifky? 08:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support PiRSquared17 08:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Seb az86556 12:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 03:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - @lestaty discuţie 02:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- support per above. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:59, 16 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.
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. Codedon 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)- Er, this oppose is in retaliation to you local block. Thanks, NonvocalScream 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- So... are you collecting blocks like others do stamps or bottlecaps? Seb az86556 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Trustworthy and knows what he is doing. Pmlineditor ∞ 07:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- support - will do a good job. -Barras talk 19:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support --dferg ☎ talk 11:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support –SJ · talk | translate 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support no worry, and he is highly available. --Aphaia 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Grunny (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- +Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. --Erwin 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Done - promoted. --dferg ☎ talk 14:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks to all! fr33kman t - c 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Global sysop for Effeietsanders
- Global user: Effeietsanders (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
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. Effeietsanders 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support ;) Laaknor 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- ^ –Juliancolton | Talk 13:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Should have steward rights instead. :) NonvocalScream 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perfectly fine, but should just get steward back. fr33kman t - c 11:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, let's restore stewards rights! :) LeinaD (t) 12:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree woth above, I think it's better to give him the steward mop back. -Barras talk 19:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support, although I'd prefer the same procedure as with dferg. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Steward bit would be better. --Jyothis 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Approval for global sysop does not preclude granting the steward flag. We can do these serially. Kylu 20:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - @lestaty discuţie 21:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support --dferg ☎ talk 11:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support; Is trusted. –BruTe talk 11:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support; Highly trusted - Hoo man 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 12:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support PiRSquared17 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support (-: –SJ · talk | translate 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose, Support, which might be more helpful. --Aphaia 04:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Grunny (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - but please stay also active at nl-wiki - Robotje 18:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Give steward-rights instead but if you can't take it I'll Support. —I-20the highway 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- + Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely. --Erwin 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Seems like a valid reason to be a global sysop. Obviously very trusted already. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Requests for global editinterface permissions
Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
|
Requests for global IP block exemption
Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
|
See also
- User groups — Information on user groups
General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map
Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help
Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation