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This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Ruslik0 (talk | contribs) at 20:48, 8 April 2022 (→‎2FA Tester for Dirkdagger: done). 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 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.

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 Dirkdagger

Status:    Done

<Add an explanation here>, I have read the help on 2fa and would like to enable. thanks, --Dirkdagger (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 8 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}} 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]
    Sorry, after the other comments, I have to Support Support only AFM, while I Weak oppose to GIE. When I wrote the previous comment there were reported protections only on two wikis. I found for example also this protection and, seeing the history, there was no emergency for which to semi-protect indefinitely the user talk (only 1 edit in the 2 years prior to protection). Also, if it had been an emergency, the semi-protection would have had to be very very short. As much as I'm sure that these are simply bona fide mistakes, an experienced user should never fall into these issues, and I'm really sorry if they lose this right but, given the situation, it seems to me the most correct decision. For these things there are local sysops and I have always avoided self-protecting my pages to avoid controversy but I always made others decide if it was necessary and how long. For the future, I think it would have been better to separate requests for different flags (and whose discussions have different lengths), to avoid confusion. --Superpes15 (talk) 15:00, 4 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]
    There is concern here. :( --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:16, 7 April 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]
  • {{S}} —MdsShakil (talk) 12:35, 31 March 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 editprotected was split. — xaosflux Talk 18:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, ah, yeah, that makes sense. I didn't realize the ability to edit cascade-protected pages required the protect permission. Splitting the protection actions from the editing actions would be fine, but I wonder if there might be a better approach? It's not clear to me, though, what that other approach might be, since I guess it's a bit tricky if the protection originates from an upstream fully protected page. Another (potentially related) issue, too, that's long outstanding is the ability for protection/restriction levels "above" the fully protected protection/restriction level to be overridden for creation protection because the protect action only checks for whether the user has the editprotected and/or protect user right(s), I think, rather than checking to see whether they have matching higher level protection level user right and/or because there's only one protect right. Dmehus (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Trusted user. Ruy (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. I was unsure how to address the protection issue that was raised – I decided to wait for a more detailed response from billinghurst (mainly, for an answer to Xaosflux's question from 10:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)). Unfortunately, that question was unanswered. Without knowing billinghurst's opinion about relation of GIE to antivandalism, I can't support the request. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose for GIE per Stang.--SunAfterRain 10:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose does not install confidence. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Abusefilter maintainer as the misuse seemingly concerns GIE rights only --Johannnes89 (talk) 19:39, 8 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=23118957"