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 和平奮鬥救地球[edit]

Not ending before 11 June 2016 06:10 UTC

I am a sysop of Chinese Wikipedia and a member of SWMT, and I usually check vandalisms and nonsenses on the #cvn-sw channel of IRC (my nickname on IRC: Peace). This permissons would help me in my work. Thanks!--- Earth Saver (talk) at 06:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Support.┌─⚡⠠⠵[learningis1st]-[~]- time = 06:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support。--霧島聖 (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support seems to have good experience using revert across multiple wikis. I can't find any errors myself in their work, and there is enough of it (and in recent times) to justify being granted GR. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Imho not enough crossactivity. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support,she has a lot of experience on global anti-vandalism, and she is also a sysop in zhwp, so I think she is competent for this duty.--James970028 (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, good experience on global anti-vandalism. I think this user can competent the works, too.--Bowleerin (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Steinsplitter, I'd like to see a bit more activity. eurodyne (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Reverted vandalism on 62 wikis. Music1201 talk 23:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Strange, I see reverts on less than 40 wikis. Matiia (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    (Moved from this diff)Support Support Good crosswiki reverts. Trusted user. Music1201 talk 00:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support A bit low on the number of reverts but being a sysop on a big wiki makes up for it IMO. --Rschen7754 00:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, crossactivity seems to support Steinsplitter's point, unfortunately. Though I am optimistic 和平奮鬥救地球 could be a good candidate if activity is being kept up constantly for a few months. Thanks for volunteering, --Vogone (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Quite a few of the projects are in green there, and the rest are within the last couple of months. I know you oppose anyone who doesn't have months and months of non-stop experience in this area, but really, are there any mistakes in their work? Is there any actual reason why this person shouldn't be granted this flag to help them contribute a little more effectively, other than your own subjective interpretation of what you expect to see in terms of experience? Ajraddatz (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    There are reverts on less than 40 wikis, as also Matiia says, which makes it hard to make an evaluation of the work in the first place. What's the harm with giving the applicants a chance to show their expertise before we grant the flag? And my "own subjective interpretation" is apparently shared by more people than only me (even by some supporters who however take the zhwiki adminship into account), and if you remember requests filed 3-4 years ago this here would almost have been a classical "snowball" case. The general attitude towards these requests seems to have changed, not what I and the policy do expect from applicants. --Vogone (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not at all. Have a look through the archives, to requests like this, or really any of them. The requests that fail are from people who have no experience with reverting xwiki, or who just started. Most successful ones come with phrases like "GR is no big deal" etc etc. Looking back through my own global contribs, I only had reverts on ~35 wikis when I was approved for global rollback in early 2011. Reverts on that many wikis gives more than enough material to evaluate the quality of the reverts, though of course it is always preferable for candidates to have more than that. As an aside, there were a lot more people involved back in 2011-2012 - it would be nice to have more people involved in this. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Exactly, and this here is a good example of someone who falls into the "just started" category where I'd like to see a little more before supporting. Though, I suppose it's a bit unfair to the candidate to have such a debate of principles on their application. We should do this elsewhere. --Vogone (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I suppose. I think it might be a good idea to have a conversation about GR standards elsewhere, even if it's to set up some sort of guideline for candidates. But that's a discussion for another place :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support though a bit more crosswiki activity would be favourable. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 02:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support A bit more cross-wiki countervandalism experience would be good, but I think they will be fine considering their experience as sysop on zhwp. Defender (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Active in 64 wikis, agree with Ajraddatz. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough activity yet. And adminship on other wikis was never considered relevant for this (after all, on those wikis, candidates can already revert). --MF-W 08:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per MF-W. I couldn't see "heavy use of reverts globally". Thanks for volunteering, --Infinite0694 (Talk) 11:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support SupportEnough active.--Nbfreeh 04:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, quite ok. --Stang 12:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, per above, unfortunately. Maybe later. Thanks for helping! :) Matiia (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Ajraddatz. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support We need more people with mother tongues other than English. --Holder (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thanks for volunteering! Omni Flames (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Let's give a chance. --Lingveno (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Per above. SPQRobin (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Trusted, rollback is no big deal. -FASTILY 06:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per Ajraddatz. INC 04:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, Why not? trusted user, good experience. --Ks-M9 Talk (es-wiki) 10:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
  • Oppose Oppose; unfortunately does not have the level of crossactivity I would look for in a candidate for global rights. I would suggest simply continuing to use undo or Twinkle if it still works until you establish a more clear need for the rights, then apply again. -Mh7kJ (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support 66 entries are good enough IMO, and more than 10 in green crossactivity means user is quite active.--AldNonymousBicara? 16:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Support Support See cross-wiki experience. Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 17:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done There is a consensus to grant this permission. Though some of the comments are favoring oppose as there is not enough crosswiki activity, ignoring the blanket supports, nearly double the number of comments are favoring support as there is enough cross wiki activity. Also asked fellow steward's opinion, there as well 2 stewards are thinking that there is not enough consensus while four of us are ok to grant this permission. This request is already open for a while, so I am assuming good faith and granting this permission--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Global rollback for HakanIST[edit]

Not ending before 30 June 2016 16:46 UTC

I've been an active member of SWMT, constantly monitoring #cvn-sw and have access to revert tools in few wikis, I'd like to use the global tool. Thanks. --HakanIST (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Support active and trustworthy user, good cross-wiki experience, no issues. Defender (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support eurodyne (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support user is active in cross-wiki countervandalism. A quick check over their recent reverts shows very few errors, and they would obviously benefit from these few extra permissions. Thanks for volunteering :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Enough cross-wikiness.-- Earth Saver (talk) at 06:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support. User is active in cross-wiki countervandalism. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Long overdue for the tool. Wikicology (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support - I think he will make good use of the tool. -Barras talk 16:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Cross-wiki work demonstrated. The tool will come good. Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 17:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Natuur12 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, looks alright. Quite good crossactivity and xWikiness, even though not the highest level of actual xwiki reverts. But all in all the impression of the xwiki cvn work done is very positive, which makes me think this is a reasonable request. --Vogone (talk) 12:45, 28 June 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.

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.

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.

Global editinterface for Nirmos[edit]

I need global-interface-editor to update JavaScript on all projects. You can read more at mw:ResourceLoader/Legacy JavaScript and mw:ResourceLoader/Migration guide (users). I have done this at the following projects:

  1. sv.wiktionary
  2. sv.wikibooks
  3. sv.wikiquote
  4. se.wikimedia
  5. sv.wikinews
  6. nn.wikipedia
  7. ba.wikipedia
  8. fo.wikipedia
  9. cdo.wikipedia
  10. kk.wikipedia
  11. frr.wikipedia
  12. nl.wiktionary
  13. jv.wikipedia
  14. outreach.wikimedia
  15. de.wikiversity
  16. ur.wikipedia
  17. fr.wikinews
  18. nl.wikiquote

Nirmos (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose Didn't you just run for this? --Rschen7754 14:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Concerns: 1, 2, 3 --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see the concerns regarding the need to fix those old js. The 3 discussions above didn't resolved as a clear-no. #1 is for sv.wv, #2 is for GAF, #3 wasn't closed properly (timed-out?). I'd say approve. Bennylin 18:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If this needs to be done on all projects you would think that the developers would be well aware of this and have something in place to update the almost 300 projects. They wouldn't just roll this out without telling anyone anything. I have major concerns over the urgency in this request and I really do not feel like they would follow the guidelines set out at interface editors. Specifically, interface editors should avoid making routine changes to the interface on larger wikis without prior agreement. Has anyone actually contacted a developer to check to see if this is even necessary? Or has Nirmos taken it upon themselves to make potentially unnecessary changes to hundreds of interface pages? Without further information on the necessity of this I Oppose Oppose granting this right. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Well I think even if devs have some plans it is always good to have more hands doing a large scale task. But it would be indeed good to see some coordination between the parties. --Base (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Seeing as interface editing can have wide ranging effects on readers I feel like coordination is not only good but necessary. If the devs are aware of this, which I certainly hope they are, there should be a way to just update the interface with the rollout of the updated mediawiki software. This is one of the most powerful rights that can be granted and the implications of granting it are high. There has to have been some communication for me to feel comfortable supporting this. Nirmos should have, at the very least, done a little bit of the legwork and contacting the development team to see if this is necessary. Barring that, I need to hear input from a dev regarding this before I would support granting this right.--Majora (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Majora: You misunderstand the situation. It's the MediaWiki developers that are making these deprecations. It's up to the community to fix it. As for communication, they have mostly written on mailing lists, not on village pumps on individual projects like I have done. As for whether this is necessary or not, I know it's necessary because I've read the mailing lists, tech news, Phabricator tasks, the pages on mediawiki.org and – perhaps most importantly – the JavaScript console in the browser where the warnings are visible. As for "there should be a way to just update the interface with the rollout of the updated mediawiki software", I'm afraid that isn't possible. If you know JavaScript and you have looked at my edits on the projects mentioned above, you should understand why. To explain it briefly, the deprecations are about global variables and global functions. The instances where these global variables are accessed or these global functions are called need to be replaced by the new ones, because the whole point is to remove as many global variables and global functions as possible. It simply cannot be done in the MediaWiki software, no matter how good of an idea that is. Nirmos (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This was rejected in April and nothing seems to have changed. — xaosflux Talk 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral I've been asked to leave a comment here. The changes Nirmos proposes here are not urgent. The code he suggest be removed from various wiki can and should be removed, however the code is also harmless to stay. I would recommend against granting editinterface for one-time clean up actions unless it is something urgent. Removal of redundant code is often non-trivial and requires careful surgical precision and an intermediate understanding of JavaScript programming. --Krinkle (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you Krinkle. Per your explanation and your recommendation my vote has not changed. I still oppose this appointment. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Delfort[edit]

Thanks, --Krd 07:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, Linedwell (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Rcsprinter123[edit]

Thanks, --Krd 07:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, Linedwell (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Hexasoft[edit]

Thanks, --Krd 11:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. RadiX 13:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

See also[edit]