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. 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).
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.
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. Please note: Since 2019 all global sysops are required to have two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled.
Hello. My name is Oleg, I'm requesting to grant me global sysop rights. My home project is Russian Wikipedia, but since the beginning of 2010s, I've also been helping the Wikipedia editions in the languages of the peoples of Russia. I am sysop in Wikimedia RU site, in the Lezgi and Bashkir Wikipedias (Interface admin in the last two). I also active in the Commons, Russian Wikinews, Meta, translating the Wikimania site.
Last year, during Wikimania in Cape Town, I talked about the opportunity to nominate myself as a global administrator, and received support from many people, including the steward and the global sysop. I would like to concentrate my activity around Wikipedia editions in the languages of Russia, but I am open to other projects. I'm already engaged in supporting these projects as a member of the Wikimedia RU.
As for technical moments... Yes, I enabled 2FA. As I wrote above, I am the Interface admin in two projects. I have experience in creating of websites, including wikis (for example, I created the Russian-language web-encyclopedia of Uruguayan football). I hope for your support.
Upd. I was asked to write about my main achievements in the Wikimedia movement.
Second user by the activity in the history of the section. Introduced a number of rules, gadgets, templates, held two article contests with the support of the "Lezgi Luvar Foundation" and the "Wikimedia RU".
Buryat Wikipedia was under the threat of closure. For several months, I searched native speakers on the different forums. I deleted the garbage content, saved Buryat Wikipedia from the threat of being seized by vandals. And I voluntarily refused the status of administrator when the native speaker came to the section. He still project sysop. Can I consider my activity successful? Yes.
Of course, I also helped participants from other Wikipedia editions. It's hard to remember everything.
Offline activity
I participated in Wikimanias 2017, 2018, Wikimedia Summit 2019 and will participate in Wikimania 2019. Here is my Report on Wikimania 2018. And here is Video-greetings of Wikimedians of Russian Federation to Wikimania Cape Town participants that I produced.
As an employee of the Bauman Moscow State Technical University, I conducted several seminars with students on Wikipedia editing and using of wiki-projects/wiki-engine in their future career.
About 30 articles were published in the Russian media (as well as on the websites of universities in the cities of Yoshkar-Ola, Kazan, Makhachkala, Moscow), with materials about my wiki-activity or articles with my opinion as an expert.
Since 2017, I am the member of the Wikimedia RU.
Not ending before 29 June 2019 14:39 UTC
Support. Soul Train is a major supporter of wikis in small languages, especially minorized languages of Russia, and I trust him to use the permissions in these wikis responsibly and helpfully. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Support. I agree with Amir and Takhirgeran Umar.--Саид Мисарбиев (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Hmm. Global sysop is limited flag: GS not might change user rights, not might doing any actions if wiki out of scope. Maybe is better receive local flags?—Iluvatar (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is right to receive sysop status in ~30 sections (10% of the total number of Wikipedia editions). If we talk about the search of new participants, I cannot know in which WP edition there will be success and where urgent technical assistance may be needed.--Soul Train (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Support a worthy candidate for global administrators --Аҡҡашҡа (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Support Highly appreciate Soul Train's effort and contribution to Wikipedia, he is a passionate memeber of the global wiki community, committed to the idea of boundless access to knowledge. I'm sure his appointment will be in favour of Wiki. User from Dag (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
What wikis do you want to use global sysop rights on? It seems to me like you're focusing on a small amount of specific projects, so it may be better to request rights locally. Vermont (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Russia have ~30 Wikipedia editions (excluding Russian Wikipedia, of course), 14 another projects, and dozens projects at the Wikimedia Incubator. Well, I think its not very good idea to be administrator in 45 projects, including ~29 Wikipedias :) And "I am open to other projects".--Soul Train (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose if the nominee wants to use the permissions for non-technical/trivial reasons. Given recent efforts to combat NNPOV in small communities, I have concerns with giving these permissions to a person that had a history of pushing his POV with sysop tools in small wikis and seems to harbour the same views to this day. stjn[ru] 15:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
We have a community that has decided to use exactly this map. As for political views, for example, here I did not change anything, even if it hurts me :). We have excellent relations with the author, despite his great love for Ukraine. Here is template that I created. As you see, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo - all included in the list of "states with limited recognition" («Инкарвал гьукуматар»). South Ossetia - «инкарвал гьукумат я» ("state with limited recognition"), further in the text - recognition by 5 UN states, and the point of view of Georgia. I'm not native speaker, but as I can, I include exactly this info when I created the stub. Same situation with Abkhazia, but, as I understood, this info was later deleted from the article by another admin because of bad gramatics. These are two examples of regions that Russia unconditionally considers to be independent states. But it does not prevent me from being neutral.--Soul Train (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, and we have the movement in which neutral point of view must be upheld. You, on the other hand, returned the template to non-neutral state and protected it to sysop-level protection indefinitely (did you mistake me for a vandal then?). In fact, if we go to similar contentious topics, one biased article created by you was instantly indefinitely protected from anonymous edits, in other one you have reverted an NPOV-based edit by an anonymous editor and protected the article indefinitely. This is a clear pattern that should disqualify you from holding any sensitive permissions in wikis with Russia-based community, at least until you stop considering this a normal way of running a wiki. stjn[ru] 16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I was wrong with the case of Crimea, thank for your attention. I switched the protection to autoconfirmed level now. It is very sad that I made a mistake with the protection to the level of administrator, because we have the native speaker of Ukrainian (and also citizen of this country), who could develop this article as he done it with Kiev (user Mugerganets). As for Sevastopol, it was protected to autoconfirmed level. Every autoconfirmed user could edit it (including you and Mugerganets), but do nothing. You can blame as editor, but its my point of view. Articles about Crimea and Sevastopol also protected in Russian Wikipedia, in English Wikipedia and so on. I repeat, Crimea protection to sysop level was my mistake. But not the fact of protection itself. And another state. I am 2nd most active user of Lezgi Wikipedia. This project can be considered my main project along with Russian Wikipedia. Do you really think that I want to receive the status of a global administrator only in order to run and hang up maps of Russia with Crimea in all editions? Or do you just want to hurt me because of the inconsistencies of political views and conflicts in the Russian Wikipedia? Come on, together we restored order in the Chechen Wikipedia, and you know perfectly well that I like to help the sections of Wikipedia in the languages of the peoples of Russia. And I am guided only by the opinion of the community. Where are the community members (native speakers) who were unhappy with my actions at the Lezgin Wikipedia? Or did I do something wrong in the Bashkir Wikipedia?--Soul Train (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Lowering the indefinite protection in those articles does not refute my concerns in any way. Articles in other wikis get protected due to persistent vandalism in those wikis, not due to your wishes to protect your biased descriptions of Russia. I think your nomination and subsequent responses were extremely vague in regards as to how you will use global sysop status, so I had to voice my concerns in areas where I had to co-operate with you. The fact that I had participated with you in NPOV efforts in Chechen Wikipedia (or, as you call it, ‘complete and absolute victory over [Chechen] separatists’) only shows that I am consistent in wishing NPOV upheld across Wikimedia movement. stjn[ru] 17:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Support Their personal views do not matter as long as they do not use their administrator capabilities to enforce them. They're an admin on multiple projects, and considering the amount of wikis they help out on that are GS wikis, I don't see an issue in granting this userright. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
If they haven’t used their administrator capabilities to enforce their personal views, I wouldn’t have commented. stjn[ru] 16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as it seems evident that Soul Train has used administrator permissions to enforce their political views in the past, and even recently. As such, it is not wise to grant global sysop permissions to them, as they would be able to use those rights to enforce their standpoint on wikis where people are less likely to notice. I am conflicted on this, as there is evidence for both sides, but someone who protects a page creation that definitively states Crimea is part of Russia (one example of a few issues linked above) is not someone I can support for global sysop, lest they do that in more places. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Did I remove edits which describe the whole situation with the Crimea in the article about Ukraine? No. Did I removed from the preamble the phrase "Чилерин майдан — 603 628 (Крым кваз) / 576 683 (Крым авачир) км²" (Territory is 603.628 sq km (with Crimea) / 576.683 sq km (without Crimea))? No. So what? May be we should delete all the articles with the links to National Geographic for their mapping statements (According to National Geographic's long-standing cartographic policy, while a map "strives to be apolitical," the Society's policy "is one of portraying the world from a de facto point of view; that is, to portray to the best of our judgment the current reality.") [1]?--Soul Train (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Does this article mention that Sevastopol is part of a contested region, and not just part of the Russian Federation? Vermont (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Every native speaker could edit the article. I remind that I am also an administrator on the Bashkir Wikipedia. And this article was written in a different way. I wrote the stub at Lezgi WP as I can, nobody wanted to develop it, unfortunately. On the example of Ukraine, I have already shown that I tolerate to other points of view.--Soul Train (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The article on ba-wikipedia is significantly more neutral, in that it actually recognizes that Sevastopol is claimed both by the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The article you wrote, which you recently protected from editing, does not. Vermont (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Nobody protected this article from editing. It was protected to autoconfirmed users, not to sysops. Almost every registered user can edit it. Same protection exists in the Russian, German, English, Italian (...) WP editions. In the Ukrainian WP we see the same protection, but with the version without disputed status - the city indicated only as Ukrainian (ignoring the actual and de facto state of things). User Stjn came up with a non-existent problem.--Soul Train (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
You didn't answer my earlier question. Does the Sevastopol article on lezwiki that you made and fully protected (which you claim in the last message you didn't) immediately after creation (and left protected until last October, when you changed it to autoconfirmed) mention that Sevastopol is not an undisputed territory of the Russian Federation, and is contested? If the Ukrainian Wikipedia says it's undisputed and under the control of Ukraine, that's a NPOV problem that should be addressed. It is not a justification by which you can enforce your POV with administrator tools on other projects. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
We are talking about some episodes that were almost 4.5 years ago - it was another life for me. And we talking about the project where almost all active contributors at the same time are sysops. Please, do not equalise Lezgi WP with English or Russian ones. If this protecting was a problem for some community member (I suppose, only for one of them), he could write about it on TP, in VK, Facebook, call me or send me sms or message in WhatsApp. Community decision is important thing to me. This is my last comment about Crimea and those "horror story" with protection.--Soul Train (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Not a particularly bad editor but Stjn and Vermont make some very compelling points. Hiàn (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong support I support Soul Train because he is very experienced, he helped to develop Wikipedia as Bashkir and Lezgin Wikipedia. I don't see any problem, he can help the other future projects.--Reda Kerbouche (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong support Oleg is an active Wikipedian and Wikimedian, who makes a huge contribution to the development of Wikimedia projects on different languages. Until today, I have not seen serious problems in his work, all the more I have not seen that he would deal with political topics and speculate on the basis of political view. And finally, there is always the opportunity to correct their mistakes, if of course they are. Best, --Mehman97 17:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose over the POV concerns. --Rschen7754 17:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Support: At the recent meeting of the Wikimedia RU, we discussed the inadmissibility of using wiki projects in political interests and moral code of conduct for members of Wikimedia RU. Soul Train warmly supported these principles of Wikimedia and agreed with this. I think all doubts should disappear: if violations appear, the sysop flag will be immediately removed. Everyone understands this, right? w:en:Wikipedia:Assume good faith. And Soul Train's contribution to the Wikimedia movement is very serious and active. For example, Soul Train participates in the organization of the new global contest Wiki Loves the Caucasus. — Niklitov (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that it is hard to monitor the use of the GS tool over 500-600 projects. --Rschen7754 19:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I can not find a problem about User:Soul Train: his sysop flags are saved in other wiki projects. — Niklitov (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment In the event this passes, I stress to Soul Train that Global Sysop permissions are only to be used for antivandalism and routine maintenance. This means you cannot protect articles you've written (or any unless it's being vandalized), block editors who are not vandalizing, use the tools to enforce a version of an article, or anything that is not strictly antivandalism or routine maintenance. Vermont (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course.--Soul Train (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Support An active Wikimedian and Wikipedian in different projects and different laguages. Carlos yo (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
CommentGlobal sysopsery is not about being an editorial participant, that would be normal community participation. We simply fill-in, in the absence of admins, predominantly anti-spam, anti-vandalism, and some speedy deletions. Very occasionally we may implement a community consensus deletion, though they are not often. Be well aware of any biases that may creep in and steer well away, that would be where you would leave or refer to another. — billinghurstsDrewth 02:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, but many of them are very active users of Wikipedia editions on the languages of Russian Federation, but you "don't know" about existing of those editions, as I understood ;)--Soul Train (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
To be active more, you active 5/6 GS wiki, remain all are non-GS wiki. Regards, ZI Jony(Talk) 15:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Support I support a worthy specialist--ZUFAr (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Support, I am grateful for all the work and care. Amikeco (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Support global sysop is an exceedingly small deal: it is technically limited to a set number of wikis, and the scope is even more limited behaviourally. In other words, it’s really hard to do harm that can’t be easily undone with it. He is trusted in the communities where he wishes to use the rights, and there is a need there. We should not be in the business of second guessing local projects on who is trusted to work on those projects. There is a need, and we have someone trusted to fill the need volunteering. We shouldn’t be opposing this. We should be thanking him for volunteering.
In terms of the opposes, the NPOV issues highlighted were in 2014 and 2015. I was a completely different person then than I am now, and I suspect many of the opposers were too. Unless there is evidence of current abuse of tools that show an inherent compatibility issue with these. I see no reason to oppose for mistakes 4-5 years ago.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Tomybrz gives perhaps the best reason to support of anyone here: Soul Train is not active on meta for anti-vandal stuff or in SWMT. He’s actually out improving projects that he’s familiar with and helping us to achieve our goal as a movement of spreading knowledge, not playing a video game with vandals. These are the type of people we should want more involved in global tasks, and that they are starting to volunteer more now can only be described as a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: "global sysop is an exceedingly small deal: it is technically limited to a set number of wikis, and the scope is even more limited behaviourally. In other words, it’s really hard to do harm that can’t be easily undone with it." This is not true. There are hundreds of small wikis and some of them don't have any active sysop. It is hard to notice any harm if it is ever done and no one may notice it for it to be undone as sysop ability on that wiki is limited to stewards and other GSes. (Talking only about the permission, not about the user)--BRP ever 23:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point about the highlighted issues being from a while ago, and I should have taken that into account in my oppose above. However, I do not understand why you seem to think global sysop should be given out like candy. It's a right that should only be given to users who are highly trusted to use administrator tools on the majority of public WMF projects. I will also note that global sysop permissions are not given to edit wikis you're familiar with: that is what local administrator permissions are for; although, considering the amount of wikis Soul Train contributes on, it may be beneficial. Reading the comments above since my last addition here, as well as the support from multiple editors I trust, I'm inclined to Weak support as global sysop permissions would allow them to maintain and prevent abuse on the various languages they focus their contributing at, provided they recognize the limited nature of global sysops scope and that they are still limited by those on projects where they're content editors. (it's better to simply request local adminship imo) Vermont (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Because the odds of a global sysop who is competent enough to be a sysop on multiple small projects and who has rollbacker or the like on a major project causing actual damage is next to non-existent. The most dangerous part of the sysop tools is the damage they can do to communities, not the technical aspects. A user with a limited focus who knows the languages they are dealing with is unlikely to expand to projects and languages they are not familiar with. This makes giving these type of people GS significantly less of a risk than giving someone who is a prolific SWMT GS. I'm aware of all the hypothetical technical possibilities here, but from a functional perspective, global sysop has a relatively low-risk to high-reward ratio. We need to stop thinking about every potential bad thing a user can do and focus on what is likely to happen. For most GS applications, the theoretical negatives that could happen have a fairly low chance of actually happening. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak support per TonyBallioni. I agree with 1997kB. Changing to Oppose due to canvassing concerns. --BRP ever 02:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Support Good day! this is a technical flag that does not apply to large partitions. Simply brush your garbage in those sections, where there is no active of the staff. Oleg will be happy to help them!--Erzianj jurnalist (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain the canvassing on going here? Matiia (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain the reason why you are call the voting and support of active users of Wikimedia projects as "canvassing"?--Soul Train (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
A bunch of users from projects you edit came here to !vote on your request. Many of them have few edits on meta, and it's unlikely they'd notice this request were they not informed of it by someone by offwiki means. Vermont (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this request for Meta adminship, or global adminship? And what is wrong if user want support his colleague? --Soul Train (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There's no wrong, ofc. The issue is when you ask other users to support you, that's not a thing we like. This situation is very strange and that's because I asked you to explain. Matiia (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I know what is canvassing. I do not send any massive emails, I do not even wrote about this discussion in social networks (Facebook, VK, Twitter) - my last posts were about Copa America and new single of Scooter. Well, this request is not surprise for Russian communities, I think. Because for the last years I independently asked many times to make this request. I was afraid, I wasn't sure, but many people told me - "we will support you, just do it", and I finally done. And what I see? Some strange accusations?--Soul Train (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Soul Train: If you could explain what you did, rather than saying what you did not do, that would be helpful to me to understand the context. — billinghurstsDrewth 13:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I wrote 4 or 5 messages to those people with whom we previously discussed this opportunity, that I finally opened this request. In neutral manner, without asking to support me. Maybe someone additionally spread this news, but I did not. As wrote here in the section "Appropriate notification", if I would place a message in Bashkir Wikipedia's Village pump, I think that you would see here not 5-6 users from Ba-Wiki, but 20-21 supports. Because it is very strong community, I proud to be Administrator there. I proud of their support.---Soul Train (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There's no issue with it when it comes to SRGP discussion policy, although some !voters may not like it. Also, stewards tend to ignore unreasoned or canvassed !votes when reviewing a global rights request, so it isn't particularly beneficial. Vermont (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I was about to support in start as this right can benefit all those project they mentioned but opposing due to canvassing concerns. If user can't be transperant about their request, how you can expect them to be transparent about their actions. Additionally POV concerns, which I don't want to see in a GS. Thanks! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
What should I say to the Universe now: “Please, people, STOP VOTING FOR ME”? Are you serious?--Soul Train (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I was watching for discussion for 2 days and just don't believe my eyes. We have different opinions with Oleg in politics. But it was never a problem in Lezgi Wikipedia! Soul Train never reverted my edits in polit. manner. We have discussion about the system of transcription/transliteration from foreign languages to Lezgi. Oleg is for reliable sources, I think many of them are too old for using. I even wrote the article about it in the site of Federal Lezgian National and Cultural Autonomy. But this is absolutely scientific, linguistic discuss, without using admin rights. As for Sevastopol, I even didn't see this article, but I'm sure that if I see, Oleg imidiately change the protection (he said that he was wrong with protection to admin level). It was long time ago, may be in this moment I also was admin, I don't remember. So it was no problem for our community. And I fully Support Soul Train in this nomination, I don't care about if call me some canvassed user.--Mugerganets (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose due to the obvious canvassing going on here, with even an IP supporting. This, coupled with the POV concerns makes me uneasy with the editor acquiring the permission. —Thanks for the fish!talk•contribs 14:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose and very strongly at that. I wasn't as swayed by the canvassing arguments to oppose, or even all the other nonsense and I was leaning toward a weak support but the candidates response just above mine to Tks4Fish is pretty abhorrent. If you're not prepared for valid constructive criticism and are going to meet every piece of opposition by bludgeoning them to death, you don't have the temperament to work in a variety of local communities whose policies and environment may not mirror that of your home wiki (or elsewhere.) Basically tl;dr bludgeoning your opposition at every opportunity isn't a good thing and working cross wiki requires level headedness that I certainly do not see here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
"constructive criticism" is mentioning IP voting in the case where the user obviously forgot to log in? OK.--Soul Train (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. Praxidicae (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per lack of experience will give weak oppose but then issues brought out by Praxidicae, Tks4Fish, 1997Kb are what makes it firm. The "canvassing" isn't proven but the way this vote is conducted doesn't impress. --Cohaf (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose The last few replies made by Soul Train to the oppose !votes doesn't really inspire confidence in me. — FR 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Support. Makes a lot of useful for small Wikipedias in the languages of the peoples of Russia. JukoFF (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per 1997kB. Given the circumstances I was neutral, but the candidate's overall behavior and replies posted here are decisive for me as well--Sakretsu (炸裂) 17:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I've changed my standpoint 3 times now, however this is where I now remain. Due to canvassing concerns, inability to take criticism, ru-wikimedia mailing list messages including cursing and insults, and a very extensive ruwiki block log with recent blocks as well as past ones for a variety of reasons, I oppose. Their behavior is not indicative of the professionalism and trustworthiness necessary in global sysop work, and thus I cannot continue to endorse their request. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose mostly due to recent behavioral blocks on home wiki, and confrontational tone in this discussion. — xaosfluxTalk 23:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Most global sysops are involved with the SWMT, but I am not opposed to allowing people active in maintenance on a smaller sub-set of wikis to help out. I am not incredibly concerned with either the canvassing: smaller projects tend to be a tighter-knit community than larger ones, so word gets around. The closing steward will weight the votes from people not active in cross-wiki work accordingly. But for future reference, Soul Train, on Meta advertizing requests for permissions, particularly to a specific group of people, is generally discouraged. There are a few valid concerns, such as the snippy responses and past POV issues, but overall I think that the candidate is competent enough to understand the global sysops scope and use the tools appropriately. Support – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Support, I am supporting due to quite impressive crosswiki activity and matrix, I don't particularly care about the POV concern from more than 3 years ago, that's quite a long time for people to change, and about the tone of this user use here is absolutely fine for me, in fact, its a bit funny for me. If we are talking about tone to be used for conversation, I think there are some of us here are actually worse than soul train. In any case 0.72 theil index is pretty respectable for user that focused on Russian language family project, and I support this request for GS.--AldnonymousBicara? 01:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank for your support. Just little Comment about this. I don't think that Russian language projects (such as Russian Wikinews, Ru Wikivoyage, Ru Wiktionary etc.) needs in additional assistance from a GAs - they mostly have they own sysops and smaller or larger communities. My scope of work is different - Wikipedia editions on the indigenous/regional languages of Russia. There are 37 official languages in Russian republics (subjects of the Federation) and more than 15 languages with official status. The languages of Russia belong to 14 language families (more than 150 languages spoken overall). We have about 30 Wikipedia editions in the languages of eight families. As you can see in this map, Russia can be called one of the most difficult countries in terms of linguistic diversity. Unfortunately, many languages are endangered. Wikipedia is one of the tools that really help preserve and develop such small languages. We have a section in Veps language. There are a little more than 6 thousand Vepsians, and only half of them can speak in Veps language. Main contributors in Vepsian Wikipedia are linguists from St. Petersburg and Petrozavodsk. In Dagestan, there are many languages spoken in only one or several villages. I'm trying to look for native speakers offline. I regard this as my mission to preserve and support languages. I cannot know all these languages, but I can provide technical assistance to those native speakers who want to develop their endangered languages with the help of Wikipedia. I plan to travel (I don’t hope for financial assistance from the WMF, by the way) to several regions, such as Dagestan or Kalmykia (the only European region with a dominant Buddhist population) in the near future, try to find native speakers, and tell them about the opportunities that wiki-projects provide. And I will continue this work until I have enough strength. Regardless of the results of this request.--Soul Train (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Although I have my reservations (hence, my oppose), the above shows that this user have a heart for WMF Projects and I really am impressed with their passion for outreach. I hope that no matter the outcome, don't be disheartened and continue the good work for these noble causes Soul Train. I just feel that this tool may not be the best for these aims. Thanks much. --Cohaf (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Support, has experience, i met him at Cape Town ( Wikimania). --Great11 (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, as per 1997kb and many others, I also share the concerns with xaosflux such a long list/trend of behavioral blocks definitely raises questions, they might have sysop flag at many small projects, but issues with NPOV + persistent behavioral blocks + AND not to say but answers/replies given to opposing votes here. All together forces me to not support this request. thanks QueerEcofeminist"cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 07:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
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.
Hello. I am requesting global IP block exemption to contribute to Wikimedia projects (including Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons) through VPN services on unsecured wireless networks. My account is currently subject to local IP block exemption on the English Wikipedia. I use a strong password and two-factor authentication to minimize the chance of my account being compromised. Thanks for your consideration. — Newslingertalk 08:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
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.
Please note that global renamer discussions are not votes. Comments must present specific points in favor of or against a user's approval.
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 [[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 input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential.
Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions[edit]
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 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.
Support. Soul Train is a major supporter of wikis in small languages, especially minorized languages of Russia, and I trust him to use the permissions in these wikis responsibly and helpfully. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment Hmm. Global sysop is limited flag: GS not might change user rights, not might doing any actions if wiki out of scope. Maybe is better receive local flags?—Iluvatar (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose if the nominee wants to use the permissions for non-technical/trivial reasons. Given recent efforts to combat NNPOV in small communities, I have concerns with giving these permissions to a person that had a history of pushing his POV with sysop tools in small wikis and seems to harbour the same views to this day. stjn[ru] 15:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Support. 
Comment Hmm. Global sysop is limited flag: GS not might change user rights, not might doing any actions if wiki out of 
Oppose if the nominee wants to use the permissions for non-technical/trivial reasons. Given 
Strong support I support Soul Train because he is very experienced, he helped to develop Wikipedia as Bashkir and Lezgin Wikipedia. I don't see any problem, he can help the other future projects.--Reda Kerbouche (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong support I support 
Weak support
Weak support
Weak oppose The last few replies made by Soul Train to the oppose !votes doesn't really inspire confidence in me. — FR 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose The last few replies made by 
