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).
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 everyone, I would like be able to also use global rollback. I have been active in fighting cross wiki vandalisme for two years almost on a daily basis. I have rollback rights on nl-wiki and actively am fighting spam and vandalism as can be seen in my logs. I report spambots, revert vandalism and help out with fighting sockpoppet spam/advertising farms. I fully understand the right and will only use it to revert obvious vandalism and spam of course. I hope you can evaluate this request and my contributions and trust me to use the right for the good of the wikipedia projects. Thank you. Hoyanova (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Edit count a bit low (62 wikis so far, excluding nlwiki, enwiki, Meta and Commons), the majority of which are CSD tagging of articles by LTAs. Some remained or were fulfilled, some other were reverted, e.g. eswiki, nowiki, plwiki. Your reverts are good, albeit sometimes unnecessary. In general, I think you're good enough for me to support. Just a recommendation: if possible, please use clearer edit summary; I doubt if everyone can understand rv cw ls. Also, while checking your contributions, I found something you might want to have a re-look: yuewiki, cywiki, lvwiki. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh13:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose/Oppose Sorry but I feel you need some more experience as there are a few strange reverts, and there isn't as much cross-wiki experience as I would like. Thanks for volunteering and thank you for your help in anti-vandalism! -Ferien (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of the links shared here are quite recent and look like red flags to me. Please be more careful in the future and come back after gaining more experience. Thanks, ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)19:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please let me know what the red flags are I have answered above about some concerns and am very careful usually. Regards, Hoyanova (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not suitable. Alter ego (undeclared) of user:MoiraMoira (based on ducktest) who caused havoc as admin on the Dutch WP. We don't need someone who tends to act as prosecutor, judge and executor at the same time. Very much followed her own rules, what regularly were not Wikipedia-rules. Hates transparency, discussion and critic. The Banner (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I would like to ask the community for global rollback rights. I'm frequently active in fighting crosswiki spam, and regularly use tools such as SWViewer & Huggle to fight vandalism. I already have rollback rights in deWP (where I'm a sysop) and in enWP. I'm familiar with GR guidelines and promise to only rollback clear vandalism & spam. Thanks for your feedback! --Johannnes89 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Many know me for developing and operating InternetArchiveBot, which is a global bot. Unfortunately, a brain fart accidentally caused me to let the bot make a mass amount of bad edits on a wiki it runs on. It would be great if I could have global rollback, to speedily reverse these bad edits on any wiki. Right now I'm undoing the bad edits one by one, which is a bit tedious and time consuming.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)18:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberpower678, could you describe what exactly has to be done and what is the scale of it, please? I fail to quickly understand what went wrong from your global contributions. --Base (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today's accident was caught quickly enough and only 49 edits needed to be undone. But it brings up a more important issue. This bot runs on more than 100 wikis at current, and like all bots, there may be a time where it just starts making a massive amount of bad edits. This could happen on any wiki. Manually undoing those 49 edits was already very tedious, and took a good ten minutes with help, when simply clicking a single button could have done the same thing in seconds. There could be an issue where the bot breaks, because some breaking change on MediaWiki was introduced causing the bot to malfunction on all wikis. Some of the smaller wikis might not even be equipped to rollback the damage, or may not even notice quick enough to stop the bot. My request is strictly a cautionary measure should something like that arise, I can take responsibility for the bot's actions, and reverse them quickly. —CYBERPOWER(Chat)20:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberpower678, any chance to build a feature that will allow bot to essentially roll itself back on its own on command? As well as ideally also measures to detect potential out of ordinary edits automatically. --Base (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but how the bot knows if it’s edit is out of the ordinary is effectively difficult to detect in the first place. Page blanking is one thing, but repeatedly posting a URL it shouldn’t be posting will get easily missed for instance. And in those cases, the bot will likely be blocked from editing meaning I can’t initiate a self-revert script from its own account.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)22:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678, You can always ask any global rollbacker for few wikis(I would love to help in reverting bad edits of your bot or however), but if the problem is frequent then you need to have some function in your bot itself. I am not sure having a global rollback is the solution to your problem? QueerEcofeminist [they/them/their] 13:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the extent of bad edits? How many projects and how many edits? And since when the bot might have wrong? We can set the dates on contribution and revert all the recent current edits. As if the edits are bad they had to be reversed anyways. It's a good thing that you came ahead. QueerEcofeminist [they/them/their] 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GR is for handling vandalism, nonsense, or counterproductive edits. Using it to clean malfunctioning bots or any other kind of activity is just out of the scope of the GR policy. I would suggest using some kind of undo tool or Twinkle global that reverts mass-edits and would be much better for the use case. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried Twinkle Global, but despite disabling the option that requests for an revert reason, it stills forces a dialog box on me for every edit I am reverting. It's just as tedious as manually undoing each edit. Other mass rollback tools that I just got pointed to on IRC, require the rollback permission. So unfortunately I'm back to square one here. —CYBERPOWER(Chat)15:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historically, if there's need for a userright that is met by a given permission and not others, it's okay to bend the specific policy a bit provided there's consensus. I think that Cyberpower being able to clean up issues that their bot may cause would be a net positive, and fall into supporting this request. Given his experience on the English Wikipedia and with running a bot of this size and global importance, the chances of abuse are next to none. Yes Cyberpower could make a request on SN or elsewhere for help, but it'd be a better use of our time for him to have the ability to do it himself. Cyberpower, thank you for volunteering, and happy editing! Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: No issue with supporting them, pleasant to work with w.r.t. IAB Bot, so Support first. This seems a reasonable use of IAR to grant something that will help to solve issues relating to content on many wikis. I am just concerned about the duration, I personally will be comfortable for just a brief temporary grant to clear up the mess. In addition, should it be granted to the bot account as that is where the mess started? Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the scope of global rollback is antivandalism, I Oppose indefinite permission and Support a temporary grant for, say, a month. As Cyberpower said, [i]t's, fortunately, not a frequent occurrence, so one month (or two) should be sufficient for you. If the need ever arises again, simply re-request for renewal. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh07:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose granting indefinitely even with limited scope. Since this request have a specific purpose, I would expect Cyberpower to not use his GR, if granted, for any purposes other than that one. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh07:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your stance makes little sense to me. The mess is already cleaned up as it was small enough to do with a bit a manual labor. So giving it to me for 2 months serves nothing, unless I manage to create another mess in that time. That's not exactly something I am trying to do. I would also rather not sit here for 5 days waiting for a permission to clean up a mess, when I could already be cleaning it up, if I already have the permission. Not exactly trying to change your vote here, but just wanted to say. I'm well aware that I am asking for a permission whose reasoning for it isn't exactly in scope for the permission. —CYBERPOWER(Chat)11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the original problem was small enough and has already been solved, and new ones have yet to arise, why would you need global rollback for now? I did want to support a temporary permission, but since it seems that GR is no longer needed I'm Oppose-ing. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh15:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To cover future instances, should it ever happen again. Your rationale is that I ask for it when I need it, but that's a 5 day process, in which, during that time, other people could make edits, on the affected pages, making a rollback impossible. The idea is, if I screw up, which I don't plan to, it would make sense to swiftly be able to reverse it as quickly as possible. Asking for the permission when I need only adds a 5 day wait and just makes cleanup more difficult for everyone involved. —CYBERPOWER(Chat)15:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This isn't what GR is for. If your bot contains *that* many bugs, then you need to be more thorough with your testing and implement dry runs so you can be certain errors are not being introduced. -FASTILY08:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily:, It's been a while since we last interacted, and I carry great respect for you, but the comment is a little too black and white. This isn't about poor testing, or not doing dry runs. I was doing testing and dry runs, but accidentally did a wet run when I didn't want to. Accidents happen. So it doesn't require *that* many bugs to create a problem, it only takes one. Also with as many wikis as IABot edits, it's impossible to catch every problem during testing. I make every effort to catch every problem before releasing updates and bug fixes, but sometimes the bot will behave unexpectedly on one wiki entirely, while working flawlessly on the rest. Sometimes issues are unforeseen despite testing. Fortunately, I have never created a problem that needed me to invoke mass rollback, but it certainly would have been useful yesterday, and I'm just saying that having it as pre-caution would be nice to have. I get that this is out of scope, but I fail to see what the harm would be here. I'm not trying to change your vote here, since I do understand GR is only for anti-vandalism under current policy. —CYBERPOWER(Chat)12:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As well as NDKDD, I would have supported temporary grant of GR right if some bad edits happen (they better not be, but in case of such massive scope of bot, they may well occur and thats normal if such problems are addressed properly), however I Oppose in this particular situation of unknown usage.--reNVoy(user talk)11:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supportindefinite grant for reverting InternetArchiveBot edits only Indefinite because there is no use having this temporary as pointed out above. If Cyberpower wishes to use global rollback for other things in the future, then he should come back here for another request. I trust Cyberpower not to use the right inappropriately and only for the task he said he'd use it for. --Ferien (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Granting the global rollback also gives other flags, in addition to that of the rollback, such as autopatrolled and abusefilter-log-detail or suppressredirects in each project. Some may not be used, if you have limited use, but others will definitely be used (like autopatrolled everywhere). So it's impossible to give a GR for limited use only imho. Personally, I could look favorably on only a temporary flag (which should be extended by two months at a time for example), and specifying that this isn't the main purpose of the flag and it would still be an exception. Best --Superpes15 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
When you give someone global rename rights, please add them to the list of global renamers and ask them to subscribe to the global renamers' mailing list.
You are logged in on this wiki, and the account is part of your global account;
You have considered the addition of a user language box to your user page
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 rename for {{subst:u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ===
{{sr-request
|status = <!-- don't change this line -->
|domain = meta.wikimedia <!-- 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). While all input is welcome, there is a hard 80% support requirement for this role as per the global renamer policy.
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 stewardswikimedia.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.
If you want to edit the Chinese Wikipedia, usually global IP block exemptions will not help you. Please see this instruction to request a local IP block exemption.
Instructions for making a request
Before requesting global IP block exemption, make sure that:
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.
I am a Chinese user. Because the government has blocked the Wikiproject, I have to use the proxy server to participate in the Wikiproject. I get blocked when editing Wikidata and other Wikiprojects. --dxmaimxd (talk) 11:05, 9 June 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:
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:
You are logged in on this wiki;
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.