Steward requests/Global permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests(Redirected from SRGP)
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Global permissions) latest archive
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.

Successful global rollback requests require no fewer than 5 days of discussion, while successful global renamer and global sysop discussions require no fewer than 2 weeks.

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests


Requests for global rollback permissions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg 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:

  1. You have sufficient activity to meet the requirements to be allocated the global rollback flag
  2. You have a global account;
  3. 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.
=== Global rollback for [[User:Foo|Foo]] ===
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!-- don't change this line -->
 |domain    = global <!-- don't change this line -->
 |user name = Username
}}
::''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 (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.

Global rollback for DARIO SEVERI[edit]

Not ending before 25 April 2016 06:16 UTC

I have been editing since 2011 and I am currently a rollbacker in the English, Italian and Spanish. I am also a sysop in Portuguese Wikipedia with 14,000 administrative actions. Most of my 51,000 editions as editor is reverting vandalism or minor corrections in articles. Lately I have been active in reversing vandalism in several other Wikipedias. I would be grateful if you would consider me for the Global rollback flag. Any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am focusing my edits to revert vandalism in just over 50 wikis, because I do not see in Global rollback policy a minimum number, it cites only that the users must demonstrate heavy use of revert on many wikis. Excluding my home wiki (pt) I have over 10,000 edicts (cross-wiki experience) and thousands are related to vandalism (please see (en), (fr), (nl), (simple), (tr), (ca), (es), (it), etc. wikipedias). DARIO SEVERI (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
All the wikis you mention there are so-called big wikis, mostly with own governance of the rollback permission. --Vogone (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support good experience.-BRP ever 06:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Holder (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Defender (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, trusted user. It is very active in projects. -ks Talk 22:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC).
  • Support Support. Activity is ok and it has been demonstrated. Besides, there are no concerns whatsoever in my opinion. Keep up the good work. RadiX 03:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support -FASTILY 03:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, for now. I see reverts on less than 60 wikis. Matiia (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, trusted and active. Érico (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, no concerns here.--HakanIST (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support seems fine. xaosflux Talk 02:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, K'n-yan (msg) 09:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Matiia. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per Matiia, activity is insufficient as of now. Please keep up the work and I will happily reconsider in case of a later application. --Vogone (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support he's present on it.wiki and a trusted user; tools like global rollbacking exist to be used, not as acknowledgement for some past work: if he will not use it, just remove--Shivanarayana (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above, I think his experiences in the SWMT area is currently not high enough. --MF-W 14:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support it would be better if they had more SWMT experience but I see no problems. Reguyla (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, would like to see more activity, for longer time, many of your edits on your non-homewiki projects were made very recently, and most of them weren't undoing. --Stryn (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --James970028 (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose weak oppose, per Stryn, would be happy to support later after gaining some more cross-wiki experience. Thanks for your contributions.—Ah3kal (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support has considerable xwiki experience reverting past language barriers, even if they aren't active with the SWMT. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Probably would be okay with the tool considering other userrights but most of the crosswiki activity isn't reverts. --Rschen7754 05:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose weak oppose per MF-W. Plus, I couldn't see heavy use of reverts globally.[1]--Infinite0694 (Talk) 14:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Per all other opposes. eurodyne (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support trusted user active on a large number of projects. Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support It is sysop in pt.wiki, so there is confidence that the tool will use well. --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support very constructive user, will make good use of the tool.--Druddigon (talk | contributions) 21:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support I think 60 wikis is an unreasonable number of wiki's to be active on for this user right. User can be trusted. Music1201 talk 02:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support For me, 60 wikis is a really big number. I don't see any real issue. Also, some language skills are promising, he can probably deal with almost all romance languages in case of cross-wiki emergency. I also know the guy, seemed trusted too. In any case if the flag is not approved now, I would suggest to reapply after a while once you have more activity on non-homewiki projects.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
No clear consensus, Please feel free to re apply later when you gain more experience.--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
sorry Shanmugamp7, we probably conflicted but I got no warning. Not the my support was the "crucial" one in any case.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Shanmugamp7: 20-8-1 (s-o-n) is a clear consensus. This user should actually been given the global rollback flag already. Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Imho 71% is not a clear consensus. The passing benchmark for a RfA on most wikis is 75%. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"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" (quoted from the header). Among this group of users, it can be seen quite clearly there is no consensus to grant this at the moment. --Vogone (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95, Jianhui67: Please note, This is not a vote. The support comments were not convincing enough to grant the flag, while there are many oppose comments with proper rationale and they are specific to this flag --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I (reluctantly) agree with Shanmugamp7's rationale. When weighing the opinions of those who are active in cross-wiki work, it does appear that there is no consensus. However, I am slightly disappointed that this request didn't pass, given the fact that the candidate clearly knows when to click rollback and would most likely not misuse or abuse the rights. To @DARIO SEVERI: thanks for volunteering, and please continue to be involved in xwiki work and maybe re-apply after gaining more of the experience that the individuals above are requesting :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all that support my application ... but get more rollback experience is a joke. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe the opposes referred to getting more experience in rollbacking across different projects. Dismissing it as a joke doesn't really seem fair, though. Savhñ 22:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this request still open? The status saying 'not done' through.--DangSunM (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's closed as not done... --Stryn (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg 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 [[User:Foo|Foo]] ===
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!-- don't change this line -->
 |domain    = global <!-- don't change this line -->
 |user name = Username
}}
:''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.

Requests for global IP block exemption[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg 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 Global IP block exemption. Not all rights changes are notified here; please watch Special:Log/gblrights to see them all.
Please note: Global IP block exemption does NOT make one immune to locally-created blocks of any sort, only global blocks created via Special:GlobalBlock.
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 [[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 (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.

Global IP block exempt for Suchichi02

Because of the variable IP of my network operators, I may be assigned to an IP that is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis and the reason given is leaky colo + open proxy at 45.32.89.47. It says the expiration of block is 19:32, 6 April 2021 but I can't wait so long. So I want the global IP block exemption, thanks, --Suchichi02 (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please let us know if/when you no longer need it. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Ivannah[edit]

The reason for blocking is "Cross-wiki spam: spambot". Global block by @RadiX:: Must be an error - so I request the global IP block exemption, thanks. --Ivannah (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ivannah:, can you please e-mail us the details of the block to stewards@wikimedia.org? Savhñ 07:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Block downgraded. Savhñ 21:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Requests for global rename permissions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg 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 rename policy.
Stewards
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.
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;
  3. 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 [[User:Foo|Foo]] ===
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!-- don't change this line -->
 |domain    = meta.wikimedia <!-- don't change this line -->
 |user name = Username
}}
:''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.

Global rename for FocalPoint[edit]

Not ending before 15 May 2016 15:02 UTC

Hi, another user thought it would be a good idea to invite me to become a global renamer. I reviewed and translated the Global rename policy to Greek. It seems simple enough so I do not mind giving a helping hand to the global renamers' team. I am based in el-wiki (sysop) but I am also contributing on several wikis. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any experience with the global rename progress? You wrote here that you have a (long) to-do list, you have time for renaming users? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Steinsplitter, I can guarantee that I will not be in the top 10% of the list, but I am pretty sure that I will not be in the bottom 10% either. Nevertheless, I clearly remember the time when I thought that contributing in en and el-wiki was enough. Otherwise, I am not sure if I understand about your question. A literal reply, is: I am not aware of the global rename progress (if the progress is reported somewhere, and I suppose it must be somewhere, please show me where). If you mean global rename pro"c"ess, then I have seen the requests and replies on the local bureaucrat's noticeboard. Since I do not have the right to rename locally, this is the experience I have. If I did not reply to your question, please explain. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral A global renamed must have enough time to respond to requests, even though the user is trusted for permission. --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support no big difference compared to previous candidates (some were not cross active, some had limited language skills, some didn't even help to translate guidelines, some were only local sysops or not even that). Actually slightly more experienced than some of the previous candidates we approved. So the only "concern" is the "expected" level of activity? you can't process intentions and BTW that's not even a "concern". Look at the stats and you can easily expect that with the current level of motivation, (s)he 's gonna be more active than half of the people who have the flag now. Overthinking this aspect has no real advantage. We should start to appreciate people who are honest about their level of activity, and there is no problem in not being in the top 10% considering a part of recent GRs are not (should I cite some name :D ?). I don't think these are the concerns we need to grow as a community mainly because they're not consistent, but we sure need more "local" users acting as a bridge with the meta level.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    As part of the transition, we approved quite a lot local bureaucrats without further requirements. This has been done for reasons. Since, I think most successful applications were submitted by users who have already shown some involvement in the renaming process on their respective homewikis. I don't see how crosswiki experience matters here, rather previous involvement in the renaming process does. --Vogone (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    We accepted two it-N Global renamers that had basically no experience with global renaming. One had been recently elected bureaucrat because of my suggestion, but it was after the SUL. Jianhui67 was not a a bureaucrat anywhere, but he only " have read and understood all the various relevant rename policies" and wanted to help. Mys_721tx was only "great at following manuals and have read those related policies"... They were all successful. after all it is juts a GR flag. BTW according to previous selections crosswiki experience may matter as one of the critical issues (not for me, BTW). But the core point is that there is no big difference between this candidate and those of this last year, overall. I strongly encourage everyone to look at the archives. Vogone, you are usually critical but untill now, the mass was not. Just to prove: I am not inventing anything here :) --Alexmar983 (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Do not trust this user. Not bound by policies when they conflict with his own visions. No guarantee he won't bend GR policy too when convenient—Ah3kal (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
that's a critical issue. I don't know how you can bend a GR policy (forcing a rename?) and where is the convenience, but if you link a situation where (s)he misbehaved I will look carefully. I can understand modern Greek.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ah3kal that FocalPoint's most favorite policy is Ignore All Rules. Forcing or just accepting a rename that should not be accepted, is a possibility. --Geraki TL 05:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
still, i would prefer a link.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support I agree with Alexmar983. You don't need to become a supercomputer to become a global renamer. Activity is not a concern in global renaming. This is not a RfA. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Alexmar983. It would be good to have a Greek GR. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
another one, we have one el-N, Geraki as far as I remember, not "top" active. Not blaming him/her, maybe there is no a lot of activity but still 2 GRs provide a much better coverage, in the end. On some platforms FocalPoint has less flags but it is more active than Geraki. If FocalPoint will not be accepted, I hope a second one will arrive soon or later.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record: I (geraki) usually take care of rename requests made through el.wikipedia. Little activity is not the result of boredom but due to the small number of requests and the great effort of other global renamers here on meta: the queue most times is empty. Also, sometimes a request should be declined, and this is not logged in meta special page. I do not think that there will be a difference in the process regarding requests made from greek users or any other language, by having one or ten more greek renamers. -Geraki TL 05:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
better does not mean that the previous is bad; if we had two el-N I would not think a third one is crucial, but the difference between 1 and 2 allow a more constant presence. that's not just with Greek language. A second GR can help in local if the other one is not available (are you on holiday sometimes? what if you are very busy on OTRS?) or can help on meta, depending on the situation. You saw that with the translation of the guideline: he had the time, you didn't in all this months.
Just to give a comparative idea: there are 13 millions people in the world who speak Greek, 22-28 millions speak Dutch. Forgive me if in terms of users the proportion is not as perfect, I should add up all the active users of platforms, but that's a very mobile data. The biggest core of Dutch speaker lives in country where the knowledge of English or French or German is much higher than Greece. nl-users are much more cross active than el-N users too. We probably don't need a lot of nl-N Global Renamers. Yet, we have 1 nl-4 and 3 nl-N with global renamer flags. Swedish speakers are even a lower amount, less than 10 millions, they have a good English knowledge overall and we have 3 sv-N users with GR flags. Are those sv-N and nl-N users doing something else? Probably. does this bother us? Not really. So why not having two el-N GRs especially if both of them have a good English knowledge? That's how i saw it.
In any case, concentrating flags on just on single user is not a good thing on the long term. One aspect of a balanced wikimedia activity is trying to be non-relevant. The more you allow other people to do what you're doing, the more you can use your experience to do new and different things. that's how a system grows. Even if he is not Focalpoint, a second el-N GR would be a good thing.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
What I meant is that there is no backlog for greek users here in meta or elwiki, and the comparative analysis is not only missing points: Knowledge of English seems much higher in Greece, and most Greeks read and edit mainly English wikipedia rather the Greek one [2] That's why I say that the language issue is moot. Of course having one or two more el-N renamers would not do harm, but it would not create a change in the essence of what you suggest. Even if it would be crucial, FocalPoint edits only in weekends and holidays, with not much crosswiki activity compared to other el-N users, so you would need a third one. But I have also expressed my concerns about his doubtful adherence to any rule, procedural or not. If we really want more el-N users there could be found more hopeful proposals. -Geraki TL 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
it may be higher in Greece than other countries but not than Sweden or Netherlands. I worked at the E.U., you kinda know that. I touched with my hands. In any case you have some problem in elwiki if your potential users go somewhere else, luckily for you that link is for visiting not editing, which is a slightly different concept, especially after so many years that wiki exists and the introduction of smartphone. In any case I think that you should have put a part of the energy you are using here in translating GR pages and finding a more hopeful proposal in those years. Dealing all the backlog just one person is not an ideal situation in a cooperative environment, and as a expert user you should be the first to know. In any case having two el-N GR will make the situation of the Greek language similar to other ones, that is a difference. It is not moot, even for simple tasks we still have type "A" languages which are overrepresented and more in charge of general maintenance (that's what it is, in the end) and type "B" language where apparently one is enough, like the black guy in a some US sit-coms.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- Dan Koehl (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --DangSunM (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems like this is an altogether bad idea. I feel sorry for this user who was talked into candidating under the pretence that there would be an urgent need or whatever. Geraki's comments demonstrate very well that such a need actually doesn't exist. There are more than enough global renamers and all this "it would be good to have a renamer speaking language XYZ" cannot be the decisive (or only) argument for why someone should be elected. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the "global rename requests queue" contains all requests together, it's not separated by languages and most renamers act on all requests they see. That's because for most rename requests, no language skills whatsoever are needed. — Additionally, the oppose from Ah3kal based on this user's attitude towards policies (confirmed by Geraki) makes me very unconvinced that he is a fitting choice for being a G. Renamer. --MF-W 00:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
read his talk. "urgent need or whatever" is not correct, I wrote That's probably enough, although if you look at the stats he is not one of the most active, so maybe a second el-N might not be a bad idea. and also you can ask around o other GRs if you wan to be sure about the task. In any case he is quite ok with it, again look at the talk, so don't fell sorry. If there is really bad idea here is to openly contradict the past nominations, where improving the cover of certain languages has been considered one key factor. Now we can say it is no more one of the aspects but what will happen next? Another contradiction with limited "historical depth"? This is like the activity request, many new GR are barely active but suddenly it is an "issue"? We can flip-flop here but the final result is that probably we will skip candidates, current will soon or later become less active and than we will have "emergencies" and we will maybe nominate someone even less skilled. Or maybe someone that has a critical user's attitude, so bad that there is even a link to show immediately. But there will be an emergency and noone won't have time to look for it, as they barely have now, apparently. So we won't know. And in the end that person will be even more relevant. In any case I can go personally in the talks of people I left similar message and cite this discussion. I won't stop to tell them. I do once in a while and I am not the only one, many candidates were suggested. And we don't want few people to be the one that "suggest" do we? It is not very wiki.... we want to put everyone in the condition to suggest to apply. Stating very strong generic sentences in contradiction with previous procedures is not a great start, but we can improve.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose As with MF-W, I don't see a strong need to have x number of renamers per language. All requests are handled centrally, and it is generally very easy for existing renamers to check to ensure that the requested name is appropriate regardless of language. There have also been no demonstrable issues with this. On the candidate specifically, the concerns of Ah3kal make me think that this is not the best candidate for this role. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I am trying to get people back in Greek Wikipedia giving lessons for free four times/week voluntarily for two years now, and teaching and promoting Wikipedia since 2011. A very respected percent of Greek Wikipedia contributions comes after this work. I am in favor of FocalPoint.--ManosHacker (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Requests for other global permissions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg 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.

add global OTRS-member for NativeForeigner[edit]

Thx. --Krd 06:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

See also[edit]