Steward requests/Global permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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. For requests that are unlikely to pass under any circumstances, they may be closed by a steward without further discussion (after a reasonable amount of input).

Quick navigation: Global Rollback | Global Sysop | Global IP Block Exemption | Global Rename | Other global rights | Removal of access | Local permissions | Unexpired temporary access

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 (other than requests that are unlikely to pass under any circumstances, no other 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 Martin Urbanec[edit]

Not ending before 17 August 2019 16:54 UTC

Hello, I would like to request global rollback permission. I'm (semi)active in cross vandalism area, and I think being a GR will help me with my work. Sometimes, I press undo, and then I notice there's an edit before the edit I undoed, so I have to make another edit, see [1]. I'm currently an admin, bureaucrat and a checkuser on cs.wikipedia, and I also served there as an arbitrator. I also serve as an admin on mediawiki.org, where I requested those permissions for anti-vandalism efforts. Thanks for considering my request, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support smart enough not to break things and will be an asset. Praxidicae (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Of course. Trustworthy, knowledgeable, and highly experienced. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah! sure. Agreed with above comments. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support can be trusted, clear use case --DannyS712 (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Capable user, knows what he's doing. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support obviously, user has server access, GR is relatively trivial Krenair (talkcontribs) 20:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 00:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Stryn (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --WikiBayer 👤💬 07:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Alright, The last time I seen through their contributions for global rename those are good enough for GR. --Cohaf (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support sure. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per above. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 13:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support. —Sgd. Hasley 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAmmarpad (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support trusted user--Turkmen talk 21:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 01:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support - Sounds qualified to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support--UltimoGrimm (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support for sure. Mahir256 (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2019 (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. Please note: Since 2019 all global sysops are required to have two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled.

Global sysop for WikiBayer[edit]

Not ending before 16 August 2019 17:56 UTC

Stalktoy
I am very active in Small wiki Monitoring Team and in spam fighting. I want with the right especially spam and vandalism in projects without admins such in chrwiktionary or krcwiki or other delete, but also occasionally take over a few maintenance tasks. I have read and understood the guidelines The Global SysOP right would greatly help me and the project in my work at SWMT. --WikiBayer 👤💬 17:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Support Sure, why not. Active in crosswiki work as evidenced by the stalktoy report as well as when I am patrolling wikis, I tend to meet them. I also notice their many SRG and SRM reports and they are fairly good and accurate in nature. Sysop on barwiki makes me know they will handle the tools responsibly. Thanks for volunteering. --Cohaf (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --Turkmen talk 18:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support  — FR (mobileUndo) 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Irwin talk2me 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose does not have sysop on a large project, so we don’t know how they’ll use the tools. I’m fairly strongly opposed to granting global sysop to SWMT members who appear disconnected from individual content wikis and who have no earned the trust of a large local community or on multiple projects within one language group. The purpose of global tools is to assist content projects, and part of assisting content projects is knowing how they operate and what the editors in various communities expect. While there are ways to do that beyond getting +sysop on a large project or on a few small to mid-sized projects, I don’t see that here. I’m sorry, but I can’t support this. I’d be happy to support a future bid at some point, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Tony many GS have SysOP only in a Small Wiki See (Huji, Holder und other GS)--WikiBayer 👤💬 12:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, Huji is a CU and Holder is a crat and IAdmin on multiple projects who has over 200,000 edits on one of those projects. Both of which suggest that they understand what the point of Wikimedia Foundations wikis is, which is my concern here. I don't see any indication you have any strong connection to a content project or understand the issues that come with developing a community surrounding an educational mission. I have extremely low standards for global sysop because it honestly can't do much harm, but I do expect the people applying for it to have an understanding what the purpose of cross-wiki anti-vandal work is. I don't think you do, and honestly, your response to me here further indicates that to me. I'm sorry, but I'm staying in oppose for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral In April 2018 he tried to become administrator on de-wikipedia 7 support - 36 oppose (As user:Futurwiki, bevore rename als Wikibayer). One month later there was an de-arbcom election: 13 support - 106 oppose --88.150.3.116 20:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAlvaroMolina ( - ) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Trusted user with a good crosswiki track record. The fact that they are not a sysop on a major project doesn't concern me a whole lot. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 02:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Catherine Laurence 13:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Doing good work. Hope they will carefully use the tool. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support After much consideration, I have decided to support as WikiBayer has been doing good anti-vandalism work across many wikis. He has been very active in reverting vandalism. Hence, I believe that he will put the tools to good use. Thanks for volunteering! Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose The only wiki where he is sysop, he totals just over 2,000 editions. Becoming GS while he could not be sysop on his local wiki makes me fear a misuse of this right. He can ask for 2FA in the meantime. Then I took a closer look at this user: he asked for the right to revoke on WD, but only used it very occasionally since February 2019. When he asked for this right, he did it as Futurwiki in Oct 2018. The Futurwiki account has become definitively WikiBayer in December 2018. If he becomes GS to end up not using this right, why give it to him! The WikiBayer account has been around since 2015. But it started to get involved globally only 22 months ago. On Barwiki and Meta, he has only been involved for 9 months. So Futurwiki had to be used more often. Why this change? The lack of transparency is not a good sign for me. In any case, he does not have enough maturity to be GS and the number of his modifications that have been removed is largely too high (all wikis combined). If its decisions as GS have to be challenged, it does not bode well and a 9-month experience as a local sysop is not enough.
Moreover, when he was Futurwiki, every request for right on his local wiki was rejected by an overwhelming majority. This is proof that he can not be GS. Finally, the way it is addressed to other contributors is not very friendly, it is not what is expected of a global sysop. —Eihel (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel: I have used all the rights that I have requested so far and never misused a right
About WikiData: I've was active in Wikidata for a few months and have used rollback many times. Since February I am not active in Wikidata so often in favor of the small projects, therefore I also use the rollback right in Wikidata rarely. :"He can ask for 2FA in the meantime:" I already use 2FA.
"In any case, he does not have enough maturity to be GS and the number of his modifications that have been removed is largely too high (all wikis combined)" This is because I put a lot of deletion requests and are displayed as deleted after removal of the pages as contributions.
"The WikiBayer account has been around since 2015. But it started to get involved globally only 22 months ago. On Barwiki and Meta, he has only been involved for 9 months. So Futurwiki had to be used more often. Why this change? " I first started in deWiki and started later in barWiki, because I come from Bavaria and also speak a Bavarian dialect. My new name (WikiBayer) also comes from my homeland. (Bayer is the German word before Bavarian) --WikiBayer 👤💬11:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You used some rights and then stopped. It is certain that you can not misuse rights that you do not use, QED. If you are GS and no longer using this right or using it on your main wiki, your request remains worrying. I'm talking about all editions, including page creations. On dewiki, your local wiki, 47% of your page creations have been removed. It's enormous. Someone who doesn't know what can fit on his local wiki is unlikely to understand what may be appropriate on another wiki, whose language is unfamiliar to him. You explain to me the meaning of your nickname, you will not tell me that you changed the nickname for the simple fact that Futurwiki was not very "bayerisch". Nevertheless, 9 months as a sysop on a single small wiki is not convincing. —Eihel (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Now I understand you correctly you mean the created pages and not the deleted edits. The deleted pages in dewiki are IP discussion pages that will be deleted after a certain amount of time. Or redirects that were created automatically after moving. Just because I'm not active in wikidata that much anymore does not mean that I stop using some rights.

--WikiBayer 👤💬 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Support--UltimoGrimm (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support One of the most active (it's only via SWV) members of SWMT. The “technical” global sysop rights has absolutely nothing to do with a “social” full sysop rights in major wikis. Do not need to create a curved hierarchical ladder. The above-mentioned local votes failed for reasons of "too early", "too few edits" and "too low language proficiency". Nothing terrible that would allow to doubt good faith or abilities of user. Sorry for my English.—Iluvatar (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, you get at the issue, which is the social part of the problem, which is the biggest concern with any request for rights. As I've said before, global sysop really can't do much technically, and the social damage is limited because the communities tend to not be active. That being said someone does need to have some understanding of the social necessities of running an online community, which being a part of the SWMT without local understandings does not do. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Number of edits in home wiki. Number of warnings on his talk page. Read his conversations (via translate.google). Number of blocks. His involvement in the Wikimedia Movement in generally. The process of obtaining sysop rights is too different in wikis, and is too different goals to obtain global and local rights. Yes, we need to evaluate the candidate’s minimal social skills, his sanity, but owning a local sysop right is a very bad criterion. Moreover, in some wikis there is no working procedure for removing rights for violations.—Iluvatar (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Sure, which is why it is not the only way a user can earn my trust, though it is the easiest. I unfortunately am still very concerned that they don't have an understanding of what it takes to be part of an active online educational community, which means I can't trust them with this right. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Or maybe we have different views about GS. I believe that GS should not be an analogue of local sysop (not like in that request). GS should not block experienced conflicted users, should not try to reconcile users, should not act as an mediator or make decisions by take summarize of discussions. In my opinion, this is only a technical flag for more effective counteraction to obvious vandalism and realization technical obvious requests by local community. The rest must be decided by local sysops or stewards.—Iluvatar (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support SupportGA candidate.svg Weak support. Adminship on large wikis is largely irrelevant to GS because GS only affects small wikis. GS will only enhance WikiBayer's good work with GR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Weakened due to the candidate's difficulty with distinguishing a lock from a block elsewhere on this page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support WikiBayer does an insane amount of SWMT work, and could definitely use these permissions. The global sysop group exists to do counter-spam/vandalism and maintenance, so I am not concerned with the lack of a sysop flag elsewhere. I wasn't a local sysop at time of appointment either, nor was Hoo man or PiR^2 (off the top of my head), and we all turned out fine. I have reviewed some of WikiBayer's work, and it all looks good. Best of luck, and thanks for volunteering. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Agree with Ajraddatz. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • More than support - Their dedication and/or contributions should be awarded with tools. No concerns here. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Enough experience with cross-wiki work - the essence of this permission. –Ammarpad (talk)
  • Support Support. I do share Tony's concerns regarding the understanding of the WMF goal. I am against of thinking of Wikimedia only as a countervandalism network. But I do not consider this is the case, and don't think being a sysop on a large project is a requirement, but is useful. I wasn't sysop on any project when I became GS, and yet I was trusted the flag and have been used it wisely. WikiBayer does a good xwiki work and is qualified for this. Esteban16 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- Looks like a competent addition to the admin corp to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support -FASTILY 06:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per Jeff G and Ajraddatz. --Holder (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support GS is just a technical rights, don't envolve social questions (conflicts, and others). Because of this, sysop experience in a large project is not a requiriment. WikiBayer have a good cross-wiki activity. I don't see reasonable motives to not promote. Good look! Rafael (stanglavine) msg 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Very active SWMT member.--NMW03 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support active cross-wiki, can be trusted --DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Just remember to use the tools with caution and keep up the good work! --94rain Talk 08:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Their reverts in dewiki often lack the necessary care; reverts and reports sometimes too hastily. -- hgzh 08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    German: wenn ein Beitrag gegen die Regeln verstößt ist dieser Rückgängig zumachen. "reports sometimes too hastily"??? Wenn ich zu hastig bin warum sperren die Administratoren die Benutzer die ich melde immer?
    If someone posts are not the rule then the undo must be made. If someone vandalised is it to report, so that no damage occurs. "reports sometimes too hastily" ??? If I'm too hasty to post report why block the admins the report IPs / users always? --WikiBayer 👤💬 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    Unnecessary total rollbacks past 24h: [2] [3] [4]. Not every edit, especially by new users, is completely correct from the perspective of an experienced user. This does not justify a full rollback, which should be only used for clear vandalism. If someone's posts are not perfect but no vandalism, give them the chance to ameliorate it. -- hgzh 13:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Such resets are not unnecessary and are not performed without reason by many users. The user page had completely violated the rules and therefore have i undo the User page with reference to the rules in the summary (See at the summery "Bitte Regeln für Benutzerseiten beachten"). The rule in summery was linked. In the Other Reset I have addressed the affected user on his discussion page. ---WikiBayer 👤💬 13:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support More mops are always better. Znotch190711 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Enough experience with cross-wiki work. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support I have no concerns. Just keep up the good work. Masum Reza 02:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Obviously experienced user.--Hamish 10:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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. Please review Global IP block exemption.
Please note: Global IP block exemption does NOT make one immune to locally-created blocks of any sort, only global blocks.
Instructions for making a request

Before requesting global IP block exemption, make sure that:

  1. You have a global account;
  2. You are logged in on this wiki, and the account is part of your global account;
To request global IP block exemption
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain why you need the access and why you're suitable. If needed, link to relevant discussions.
=== Global IP block exempt for [[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 there is demonstrated need for the permission, such as bypassing a global block from someone who is not the intended target.

Global IP block exempt for Mac LAK[edit]

Hello.

Currently blocked on edition because I switched to NordVPN, mostly because of my usual ISP's filtering.

Therefore, I request a global IP block exemption, but mostly for French and English Wikipedia if not possible globally.

Thanks in advance.

--Mac LAK (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Cswquz[edit]

Hello,

I am from mainland China, which blocked all projects of wikimedia since April this year, and so from then on I can only view and edit Wiki via VPNs, which are deemed as open-proxies. I am an IPblock-exempt user on zh.wikipedia.org, with fairly well credit (having edited for thousands of times without a single block).

I mainly edit on zh.wikipedia.org, but sometimes I need to edit on other wiki projects as well, including en.wikipedia.org and wikidata (I have contributed hundreds and dozens of edits on them respectively), etc. So please allow me to bypass the ipblock, thanks,

--Cswquz (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2019 (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 and the global renamers policy page.
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 input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential.

Global rename for Vit Koz[edit]

Not ending before 17 August 2019 21:05 UTC

Hi! In 2019 I had my first experience to join the stewards team. I suppose it was too early. Actually, in the process of working on Wikipedia I had a need for rename global accounts. For today I am the editor of the belarusian Wikipedia, autoeditor of the russian Wikipedia and sysop of the belarusian Wikiquote and belarusian Wikibooks. Vit; talk 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose I'm very sorry, I am normally super supportive of local users getting rights to help with their language group, but there are two things missing here: one, you aren't a sysop or any position requiring some community trust on the main language project, so we have nothing to know if your local communities support you. I don't really consider temporary sysop roles in fulfilling this because that normally indicates that there is an extremely small local community.

    The second concern I have is that I'm not sure you'd be able to effectively communicate with other renamers. You didn't format this request correctly, and your request itself isn't clear. This makes me concerned that any issues raised with you about rename procedures might not be addressed, which could have a negative impact on projects outside your home project. I'm really sorry, because like I said, I would love to have a Belarusian renamer, but I'm not sure if you're the best person suited to be it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

    • @TonyBallioni: As always, I have questions at SRGP/Global Rename, pardon me. You said that he don't have position indicative of community trust, isn't autoreviewer and editor in some sense means they are trustworthy in the main language project? Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Hi, Cohaf. Not really. Autoreviewer is handed out pretty freely on most projects, and editor doesn’t show trust by the community as a whole. IMO, renamer is more sensitive than even global sysop because it is the only global permission where use on large projects with active communities and policies around usernames and renaming exist is anticipated. I don’t think sysop is a requirement, but being able to demonstrate trust and support from a stable community as a whole is, which I do not see here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Moral support as I note their enthusiasm to serve Wikimedia as a whole. I commented on their SE that Global Rename is all they need and hence, I am glad to see this application. Language skills will be a plus. If passed, I hope you will use the tools very carefully and consult experienced renamers if in any, even finest doubts, if not elected, I hope you won't be disheartened and continue the good work. --Cohaf (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Sorry, but I also see trust and communication concerns here which is essential due to the nature of permission. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose(discussion)--WikiBayer 👤💬 17:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Patriccck (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. Haven't had time to look into this in depth, but Tony sums up my thoughts so far. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 09:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per TonyBallioni. Concerns with communication and no obvious need for the tool -FASTILY 04:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester 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 2FA tester global permissions, make sure that:

  1. You are logged in on this wiki;
  2. You have read Help page about the two factor authentication;
To request additional global permissions
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and INDICATE you have read the Help page.
=== 2FA Tester 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 there is no reason not to grant one. A steward will review the request.

2FA Tester for Bcat[edit]

I am setting up 2FA for as many of my accounts as possible due to recent password compromises. I haven't edited in some time, but want to ensure my account doesn't get hijacked in the future. --Bcat (talk | email) 03:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the instructions on the Help:2FA? — regards, Revi 10:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

2FA Tester for Glory20[edit]

Greeting, I'm receiving emails about someone trying to access my email and trying to change my password, but it failed. I need to active the protecting feature to my account, I have read the instructions. Thank you --Glory20 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

2FA Tester for StephenWade[edit]

I enable two-factor authentication on all accounts possible. I would like access to use two-factor authentication on Wikipedia. I have read the instructions. --StephenWade (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

2FA Tester for Alpaca·Fur[edit]

I'm trying to enable two-factor authentication on every account I can, so I would like to use it on Wikipedia as well. I have read the instructions. Thank you! --Alpaca·Fur (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2019 (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.

Renew global interface editors for Isarra[edit]

Not ending before 14:09, 15 August 2019 UTC

I don't use this much, but it's very useful in particular when I need to debug someone's user scripts or fix various content model issues, especially given how hacky the normal permissions around that are, so I'd like to keep it for that purpose in particular. Originally described purpose does still stand as well (css/interface/whatever fixes around deployed products, especially across different languages and projects) at least in theory, though it hasn't come up much in practice since we've been trying to keep as much as possible as universal as possible to the skins/extensions themselves, and most of the projects have been pretty good about cleaning up their own workarounds without any issue once no longer needed, but it's kind of hard to predict what will come up. -— Isarra 14:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with renewing your GIE permissions for another year. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously yes. Thanks for the good work. 1 year isn't a big deal. --Cohaf (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course yes; is a discussion/vote necessary for this type of renewals? Thank you for your continued contributions, Vermont (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    Normally a short period of consideration is allowed just in case there are any objections. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    And in fact there is one in this case. * Pppery * it has begun 15:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose moving drafts without leaving a redirect is not within scope of the Global Interface Editor permission. * Pppery * it has begun 15:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
What on earth does this have to do with Global interface editor perms? (Edit conflict.)Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Because the global interface editor group includes the suppressredirect right, and Isarra did not (as far as I can tell) belong to any other groups granting them that right. * Pppery * it has begun 15:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
And that single move is a reason to completely remove her permissions? Seems like an issue you could have left her a message about... eight months ago (or now if you just noticed it now). – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I really dont like to badger opposes but this oppose is really something I have to call out. First, suppressing that redirect isn't causing much harm as compared to suppressing a cross mediawiki to template move, it just save admin time on an uncontroversial R2 CSD. Given the immerse work they do as a developer and the clear need, an oppose on such rationale seems inappropriate in proportion. To be clear I'm not in line with using perms at wiki but I think this can be overlooked as an genuine error. I earnestly hope you can reconsider. Thanks much.--Cohaf (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
That redirect suppression does not meet R2, because that speedy criterion only applies to cross-namespace redirects from mainspace. Nor does it (from what I can see as a non-admin) appear to meet any other of the local criteria for suppression of redirects. * Pppery * it has begun 21:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you see the point of the opposition to your oppose. It doesn't matter if they weren't completely within policy in this one instance eight months ago on enwiki. That's something to note to them as wrong, not to prevent them from volunteering in the future as a global interface editor. Vermont (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if the candidate could acknowledge the problematic nature of this (presumably accidental) action. (Was this ever brought up on a talk page? I'm confused as to why it's being brought up here, unless there was any actual conflict relating to it?) One slight misuse should not disqualify someone. --Yair rand (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand: It wasn't brought up, no. The fact that it wasn't brought up, and still hasn't been brought up with me directly, makes me a little dubious as to how problematic it really was to begin with, though I certainly understand that some projects in particular tend to prefer local actions be performed by local users, simply on principle. Perhaps someone should clarify now exactly how problematic this is, such that I have better context with which to avoid similar mishaps in the future? @Pppery: can you help with this? -— Isarra 00:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support - I am also not concerned with one pagemove from eight months ago, and do not think it is a valid reason to prevent the good work that Isarra does with the permission. That sort of concern could be resolved with a quick message, to the extent that it is even an undesirable action, and IMO should not be used to oppose at this stage. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Won't break things. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support I was not going to vote initially, but it become necessary to counter nonsensical votes. Also to reiterate (what I've said previously) this right should be given permanently. it's currently the most restrictive right of all available non-staff groups, and even then it has more staff than volunteers. It should only be removed either due to obvious abuse or long-time inactivity. These renewal quasi-votes are just bureaucratic timesink.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Ammarpad. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support I have full confidence that the incident mentioned above was not an act of malice, that it was likely a mistake, and that it could avoid being repeated through a simple message, no need to take away permissions. Such an incredibly minor thing I don't even understand how it's suddenly come up after this amount of time. Agreed with Ammarpad re: expiry of this group. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support also per Ammarpad, having trusted users to go through this bureaucratic nonsense is...well, nonsense. Isarra is a trusted MediaWiki developer who has been around for years, and she goes around fixing things, often spending considerable time to come up with a functional, maintainable, long-term solution instead of a simple hack. The movement needs more great people like her who are willing to donate their time and expertise to improve the technical state of things. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 19:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support per above. I trust Isarra to do a good job and frankly I couldn't give more of a fuck about that page move. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 23:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In my capacity as an en.wiki sysop I have ensured that the scope will never be exceeded again by granting +extendedmover. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support clear net positive. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support seems to be OK, but without spending a long time looking through logs I'm not seeing much "need" here (GUC results aren't making any actual usage needs clear - though there certainly could be things that aren't very evident in that report). I weakly opposed this renewal last year, but haven't seen any repeats of that concern so am moving to the + side. If there is a better explanation of the need that can be illustrated this would probably be a normal support. I don't see any special reason to override the normal expiration/renewal process for this level of access though. — xaosflux Talk 03:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 04:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Turkmen talk 12:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, please. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support Enough experience. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support--WikiBayer 👤💬 08:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

See also[edit]