Steward requests/Global permissions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Curbon7 (talk | contribs) at 18:46, 3 April 2022 (→‎Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Shortcut:
SRGP
This page hosts requests for global permissions. To make a request, read the relevant policy (global rollback , global sysop , global rename , …) 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.

Global rollback and global interface editor requests require no fewer than 5 days of discussion while abuse filter helper and maintainer requests require no fewer than 7 days. Global renamer and global sysop requests require no fewer than 2 weeks of discussion. For requests that are unlikely to pass under any circumstances, they may be closed by a steward without further discussion (after a reasonable amount of input).

Quick navigation:
Dynamic pages:

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Requests for global rollback permissions

Shortcut:
SRGR
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.
Please also review the Global rollback policy.
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.

Requests for global sysop permissions

Shortcut:
SRGS
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.
Please also review the Global sysops policy.
Stewards
When you give someone global sysop rights, please list them on Users with global sysop access and ask them to subscribe to the global sysops mailing list.
Instructions for making a request

Before requesting, make sure that:

  1. You have a global account ;
  2. 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).
=== 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''

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.

Requests for global rename permissions

Steward requests/Global permissions/Global renamers

Global rename for Nihonjoe

Status:    In progress
Not ending before 5 April 2022 00:53 UTC

I previously had global rename, but hadn't used it for a year so it was removed. I plan to be more involved in this now. In the years I previously had it (including when it was part of the English Wiki Bureaucrat role), I handled it well. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global rename for Eta Carinae

Status:    In progress
Not ending before 12 April 2022 12:44 UTC

Hi everyone. Due an invitation made by our fellow @Stanglavine:, I decide to open this request to become a global renamer. I've experience with advanced permissions such checkuser and oversight, as well being an ombudsman in 2019. I plan to help with rename request in my homewiki, and others too, when needed. Questions and any comments are welcome. Thanks everyone. --Eta Carinae (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global rename for HTPF

Status:    In progress
Not ending before 15 April 2022 20:13 UTC

I've been a wikipedist since 2004, with over 196,000 edits and logs, over 3,000 articles created. As Sysop since 2008, I have over 60,000 administrative actions. In all these years of activity, I gained experience in editing and administrative activities. I believe I am in a position to take on more of this activity. If accepted, I intend to work on Wikipedia-pt. Thanks in advance for the comments. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by HTPF (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global IP block exemption

Shortcut:
SRIPBE
Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Your request might be rejected if you don't follow the instructions. Please review Global IP block exemption. You may request Global IP block exemption via stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org if you can not edit this page.
Please note: Global IP block exemption does NOT make one immune to locally-created blocks of any sort, only global blocks.
Instructions for making a request

Before requesting global IP block exemption, make sure that:

  1. You have a global account ;
  2. 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 {{subst:u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ===
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    = global<!--don't change this line-->
 |user name = {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}
}}
<Add an explanation here>, thanks, --~~~~

The request will be approved if there is demonstrated need for the permission, such as bypassing a global block from someone who is not the intended target.

Global IP block exempt for Joytz

Status:    In progress

I'm in China and need proxy to accelerate access to Wikipedia for educational purposes. Info: "Your current IP address is 172.104.127.197 and the block ID is #361743". I'm requesting for global IP block exemption permission., thanks, --Joytz (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joytz: If you want to the edit Chinese Wikipedia, please follow the instruction on this page; if you want to edit the English Wikipedia, please read this section and send an email. Global IP block exemption permission does not allow you to edit either two sites. Stang 16:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you need a global IP block exemption first and then you can request local IP block exemption? Joytz (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, should I be asking for this in case I need to edit in the future but cannot, or should I ask this only when there is something I want to edit now? Joytz (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, global IPBE is not a prerequisite for local IPBE. You could request for now if you though it is useful even in the future, but at least you need to clarify which project(s) you intended to edit. Stang 01:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joytz A ping? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{notdone}} No response. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Love Love Lovelove123

Status:    Not done

<Because I love the editing of TVB dramas in Hong Kong TVB, I need to edit the content of this item through this website [1], so I need to unblock before editing Thanks Why is my ip blocked and what have I done? Please unblock me thank you, my ip207.248.207.108I'm requesting for global IP block exemption permission., thanks>, thanks, --Love Love Lovelove123 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is not globally blocked. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tks4Fish: who has now blocked it. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Block has expired, so I don't see a need for GIPBE. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contrib (he/him) 19:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that was unexpected that it expired in that time. Switching to Not done. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove global IP block exempt for Pessimist2006

Status:    Not done

Account is locked. AlPaD (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will let others decide whether to act, but I would let the flag stay, in case Pessimist2006's situation hopefully changes he will need it. --Base (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems best - appears to be an evolving situation and this can't be used when they can't log on anyway. If it is say a year and still locked, revist. — xaosflux Talk 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Special:GlobalUsers/global-ipblock-exempt currently lists two other locked accounts, ST680 (talk · contribs) and ParkHider (talk · contribs). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Hello, ST680 (talk · contribs) is compromised. AlPaD (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Base. This lock is meant as a temporary measure and does not indicate Pessimist2006 is not trusted with GIPBE anymore. mentioned above, a global lock prevents an account from logging in, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions

Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Your request might be rejected if you don't follow the instructions.
Testing this service may result in the loss of your access and is not recommended for inexperienced users.
Instructions for making a request

Before requesting 2FA tester global permissions, make sure that:

  1. You are logged in on this wiki;
  2. You have read the help page about two-factor authentication and understand how it could lead to irrecoverable loss of access to your account ;
To request 2FA tester global permissions
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and INDICATE you have read the Help page.
If the request page is currently protected, please file as an edit request on the talk page.
=== 2FA Tester for {{subst:u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ===
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    = global <!--don't change this line-->
 |user name = {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}
}}
<Add an explanation here>, thanks, --~~~~

The request will be approved if there is no reason not to grant one. A steward will review the request.

2FA Tester for Curbon7

Status:    In progress

As I have some advanced perms on English Wikipedia and my account had been compromised in the past, it was highly recommended to me that I apply for 2FA. I have read the help page. Curbon7 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for other global permissions

Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Your request might be rejected if you don't follow the instructions.
Instructions for making a request

Before requesting additional global permissions, make sure that:

  1. You are logged in on this wiki;
  2. No specific section on this page exists for the permission you want to request;
To request additional global permissions
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain what kind of access you need and why. If needed, link to relevant discussions. If you hold, or have previously held, the right and are asking for either a renewal or revival of that right, please add a link to the previous discussion.
=== <Add requested permission here> for [[User:Foo|Foo]] ===
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    = global<!--don't change this line-->
 |user name = Username
 |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.

global-interface-editor and abusefilter-maintainer for billinghurst (2022)

Status:    In progress
Global Interface editor: Not ending before 5 April 2022 05:13 UTC
Abusefilter-maintainer: Not ending before 7 April 2022 05:13 UTC

Ugh, these quietly expiring rights. Similarly to Xaosflux, here for a third successive time for the rights to view local filters results at local wikis and to support their maintenance.

My need is no different from previous requests, my volunteerism continues. There have been no other status changes in my roles as an advanced rights holder at wikis. There has been no particular change in community requirements or security that says that the tasks that I do are now redundant. Rights have been used in the past 12 months to support wikis to build and maintain their local abuse filters and their local js/css pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support Long-term trusted contributor. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{S}} extending for a year. No problems here. --Ferien (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per CM, 2[1234qwer]4 and Stang I am withdrawing my support. This issue hasn't just been on Wikidata and zhwiki. This has also been an issue on simplewiki (as can be seen here) - this wasn't a situation where there was loads of vandalism and it was an emergency, this was just one account who vandalised two or three times. Protection wouldn't have been used even from a local sysop, and we have a strict protection policy on simplewiki. There was no checking with users on IRC either unlike the other situations. There was another protection on simplewiki where you noticed your mistake and removed the protection a minute after but this is clearly quite a large problem, going into multiple wikis and protecting pages likely without even checking local guidelines. These rights aren't even supposed to be used in an emergency - using your tools for something they're not meant for is bad enough, breaking local policy is worse. While I'm sure you'd still make a good abuse filter maintainer and global interface editor, I think these issues make you a net negative with these tools and so I am Oppose opposing. --Ferien (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support – trusted user and has a need for it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Sotiale (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Thanks for your work --Superpes15 (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also a bit concerned with out-of-purpose use of a tool - and I'm referring not in this specific case but in general. Policies should be respected and, in the event of an emergency and without active local admins, a steward is first of all asked to protect (policies allow stewards to intervene during an emergency on a non-GS wiki and, seeing the log, there was at least an active steward at the time). Also not everyone may be aware that it was discussed on IRC, especially since the decision was probably made after talking with non-admin/steward users on IRC. So it would have been better to write "Repeated vandalism - discussed on IRC and no local sysop and steward active". I'm still in favor of both flags because it has happened sporadically and given Billinghurst's experience and quality of work, but I notice that it isn't the first time it has happened (as pointed out by Camouflaged Mirage). The flags should only be used for the purpose for which they were assigned! I, as an ombuds, have never made a CU for vandalism reasons, it's something not foreseen by the policy (and even if it's not explicitly forbidden it doesn't mean that it can be do), although technically I could have done it. Superpes15 (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support – no issues here. Hulged (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support Trusted user. --Victor Trevor (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{s}} — xaosflux Talk 10:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 1234's oppose, I'm going to assume this was some sort of one-off - wikidatawiki used to be part of the GS set where this could have be more natural, though it had opted out at that point. I'm not seeing any specific opposition or complaint raised by that community at the time. — xaosflux Talk 14:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On hold pending responses in other sections. A bit concerned that GIE is being used as some sort of "Global Sysop Plus" to extend xwiki efforts in to projects that have available local functionaries, I don't see anything malicious going on - but am worried about creating friction with the local governance model. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Support for AFM as no concerns have been identified there. — xaosflux Talk 12:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose for GIE due to multiple uses outside the expectations that this group is designed as a special technical support role, not for routine administration tasks for non-GS wiki's. I could see changing this if the requester revisits some of these concerns and commits to limiting future use to these expectations as they otherwise are making constructive use of it. — xaosflux Talk 12:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support —MdsShakil (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Per above! AlPaD (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sgd. —Hasley 13:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Geonuch (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 15:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{S}} * Pppery * it has begun 22:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I have been linked to [2]. Protecting content pages should not be in scope of GIE, and it certainly isn't part of the "local js/css pages" maintenance stated in the nomination (far from any kind of emergency either). Not impressed by such sneaky misuse of tools, without even informing local community as far as I can tell from your contributions around that time. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     09:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing sneaky about it, and I reject that use of a loaded word, you just need to ask. [Anyway, what do I have to need to be sneaky about in that regard.] I have no conflict of interest, and it this is part of xwiki vandalism response. I discussed it at the time, think it was in the #wikidata channel. You should also note the regular times that I request protection for numbers of pages, or alerted to vandalism, at WD. Very occasionally with that right I can put a short block in place and inform local admins at a range of wikis—it isn't very often. And I will admit that I didn't give it a lot of attention at the time, so no, I don't have good records for doing it, so in that regard I will admit casualness nor giving it much concern.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also note the history of the files. And the reports User:COIBot/XWiki/tre.it, User:COIBot/XWiki/wind.it and there are another one or two, which I cannot remember at the moment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time, were you aware that Wikidata was no longer a GS wiki? --Rschen7754 02:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Billinghurst Same question about the zhwiki action noted below, are you missing some GS overlap - or just think that GIE's should perform general protection wherever it could be useful for antivandalism? — xaosflux Talk 10:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you discussed it on IRC and there were local admins online, I'm not sure why they couldn't have handled it themselves. If there were none, well, I'm not sure how much authority that discussion would have had. The links to indefinite and one-year protections of your talk page shared by Rschen7754 below show that your actions have indeed not been limited to short blocks, and your statement above makes this seem even more concerning to me than it already did. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --mirinano (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per 1234qwer1234qwer4 * Pppery * it has begun 21:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support abuse filter maintainer, no issues. Support Support global interface editor, while the rights should not be used for things out of scope of the user group, incident does not appear to have been malicious, user claims to have discussed it at the time, and does not appear to be a frequent issue. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support -No Concerm. Aviram NoSurprisesPlease 03:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Both. As noted in my 2020 support, please try to use protection more sparingly. Zhwp is clearly not a GS wiki and such actions seems out of scope. Thank you for your other efforts and volunteering. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose for GIE, sorry. Since you have Hoo man's active sysop.js installed, I think it is pretty clear for you to distinguish if a site is gswiki or not. Although protection action - part of fighting against x-wiki abuse- is in good faith, it is indeed a misuse of GIE's permission. Similar to steward access, "[stewards] typically will not use their access unless there is an emergency", and cases listed above failed to meet the criteria of "emergency" in my view. Stang 13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose for GIE. Would reconsider if the ability to protect pages was removed from the set (which IMO it should be). I see another content page protection on fawiki, and on frwiki and semi-protecting one's own talk page on idwiki, enwikivoyage before it became GS, eswiki, ruwiki, bswiki, [3], [4], [5]. --Rschen7754 15:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the ability to protect pages is useful for GIE in situations like this (though in this specific case the user had sysadmin privileges), and the permission requires enough trust to believe a user that they will not misuse it – else it should be removed. (Different discussion though.) ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     15:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the human-readable summary of the right is "Change protection settings and edit cascade-protected pages" (emphasis mine). I'm not sure if MediaWiki indeed requires the protect right for editing cascade-protected pages, but if it does, it certainly shouldn't be removed (at least not until the right is split into protecting and something like editcascadeprotected). Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears this is being discussed in phab:T71607. --Rschen7754 18:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per DannyS712. The incident(s) identified above appear to be quite minor and could be easily resolved by creating an opt out WikiSet for GIE. Dmehus (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that "Projects may not opt out" Superpes15 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be quite honest, I think that'd be worth an RfC to allow projects to opt out of global-interface-editor as there's no real need to not allow that. We have stewards, around which wikis cannot opt out. Dmehus (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This flag is often used by WMF so I don't think an opt-out will be useful Superpes15 (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support for both rights, and I looked carefully at the comments regarding GIE; this is despite some of the concerns being valid. Personally, I do not see an issue using GIE out of policy where this is sufficiently justified; however I have to agree with Ferien that neither the simple.wiki case nor protecting your own talk pages come under that category. But should we be opposing someone just for minor errors like this, especially when this is the first time the issue has come up? In my opinion, no; especially since the net effect of these errors are minor at worst. I would just ask that the user be careful with this in the future; as can be seen, arguments such as "I will admit casualness nor giving it much concern" won't work with this community. This user has been using that right for legitimate purposes after all. Leaderboard (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above. Out of process page protections are not okay. -FASTILY 08:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, I had thought that the issue was merely editing protected pages on GS-opted out wikis. Do GIEs have the ability to protect or unprotect pages? If so, I personally think this needs a wider discussion, as page protection actions should be restricted local administrators and, secondarily, to stewards (all wikis) and Global Sysops (wikis that have not opted out). Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to not renew Billinghurst's GIE over the above instance(s). I think Billinghurst would take this as a clear learning opportunity to make the necessary corrections in approach and, if it continued this year, then I doubt the community would support renewal next year. Dmehus (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus the current technical layout has one permission, (protect) which empowers users to both edit cascade-protected pages (arguably within the normal remit of GIE's) and to set/unset protection levels. phab:T71607 has been open for about 5 years requesting this be split just as editproected was split. — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Trusted user. Ruy (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global editinterface and deleter for Pathoschild (renewal)

Status:    In progress
Not ending before 7 April 2022 22:00 UTC

Hi! I use the global editinterface and deleter permissions to run the Synchbot service and maintain my scripts crosswiki (mostly the former now). I'm not active in editing anymore, but I've been running Synchbot regularly each month since 2008. (This month's run is paused due to the permissions expiring.) Stewards have said they'd rather not take over Synchbot, so I'd like to continue this work. —Pathoschild 22:00, 02 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global_permissions&oldid=23098814"