Steward requests/Global permissions/2010-07

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for Hoo man

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm active in the SWMT for a couple of weeks now and it would be quit usefull to have global rollback (using undo or edits with &oldid isn't realy fast and captchas are even more annoying...). I already have thoose rights in de and enwiki, so I know how to use them. - Hoo man 22:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[]

  • Support Support --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 22:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[]
  • I'll Support Support. ButOppose Oppose You need some more edits on more wikis other than userpage creations. I-20the highway 22:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose same as above request: come back with more experience. Seb az86556 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[]
  • I agree with the above comments. Please gain some more cross-wiki anti-vandalism experience. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[]

There is, as of today, no consensus to promote you to the global rollback usergroup. Nothwithstanding your work is appreciated. Please keep it up and re-request the tools when some time has passed and you've gained more experience; which is the main concern raised on this request. Best regards, — Dferg 17:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[]

Global rollback for Fridae'sDoom

The following request is closed: Withdawn Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although I'm not an editor on Simple English Wiki, after seeing the articles there and how most of them are stubs or either constitute wrong information, vandalism (at times), and don't contain references I am willing to help aid in the expansion of the articles, revert vandalism, in summary, I'm pretty much requesting this the same reason I did on enwiki, I have a clean track record and I thoroughly understand the policies and guidelines and can be trusted with this userright.

  • Sorry, but I don't think global rollback is what you're looking for. For global rights, you need to demonstrate some activity in crosswiki countervandalism work first. If it's only simplewiki you're interested in, I suggest you apply for rollback locally there. Jafeluv 11:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • This doesn't seem to be a request in right place. If you wish to help on simple English WP, feel free to join us then. We can grant local permission there. I don't see any reason for granting global rollback rights at this point in time. You don't not have sufficient cross-wiki contribution to justify the granting of this tool. Sorry, but I've to Oppose Oppose this request as well. -Barras User Talk:Barras
  • Understood, but I'm a floater or ghost on the Wikis and with my global account if I know something and can make reference to it I will do so, I've fought vandalism on Wikipedia many times and it'd be easier for me to have global rollback so that I don't have to apply individually, I am a trustworthy person. --Fridae'sDoom 11:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[]
    I don't doubt that you are, but if you read the global rollback policy it says that the tools are only given out to people who are "demostrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities". If I remember correctly, a couple of months ago a former Arbitration Committee member was declined the tool because of the lack of cross-wiki contributions. So it's really not only about trustworthiness. Jafeluv 12:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[]
    I understand, my activity is limited to main enwiki and simple english wiki, I'm applied for local rollback there. Fridae'sDoom 12:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[]
I wouldn't really say you're active on Simple English Wikipedia. You only had two edits there today, for a rollback request and voting in a rfa. Nifky? 12:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • I don't see any mainspace edits on the English Wikipedia, and at the time of the writing, only two edits to Simple, both in project space. You have not demonstrating anything that would require use of this tool. Also, you have no cross wiki activity. NonvocalScream 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose sorry, with only contributions on enwiki, and 0 edits on every other wiki, you don't have the experience with crosswiki vandalism that this right is meant to help with. Laaknor 12:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • While I greatly appreciated your offer to help, I must agree with the others above. I would like to see more contributions across a number of projects before I would be comfortable supporting you having global rollback. Oppose Oppose for now. Tiptoety talk 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Ok :) I've been asked to do more mainspace edits on enwiki so I'll do that, then I'll come back in a few months. Fridae'sDoom 03:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[]
    • To forego disappointment, let me clarify: the above concerns are about cross-wiki activity. Enwiki alone will probably not help much. Seb az86556 09:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[]
      • I know that but I do need to start doing more mainspace edits, my statistics are mainly user talk... expect to see me on Simple English Wiki Fridae'sDoom 11:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose I'd like to see some more cross-wiki activity experience in potential global rollback candidates. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Global rollback for Hosiryuhosi

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I am active in SWMT for five months. If there is Global rollback, I think that I can do revert of a large quantity of vandalism efficiently quickly. Therefore I want Global rollback flag. Thank you in advance. --Hosiryuhosi 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]

  • Support Support --Jyothis 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Diego Grez return fire 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Active enough, helpful. –BruTe talk 05:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Seems good! fr33kman t - c 00:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --dferg ☎ talk 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Yes check.svg Flag granted Mardetanha talk 19:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Global rollback for Fr33kman

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, so I didn't realize that global sysop did not come with global rollback (should probably be standard policy to be honest). As such, I am asking for globall rollback also. I've gone to deal with issues on a few sites only to have to use undo because no [[rollback]] appeared. I am a new global sysop, and am active in the small wiki arena mostly. I have rollback on enwiki, & commons and sysop on simplewiki and simplewikt. Cheers! fr33kman t - c 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Support Support Well, it does include rollback, but that's going to be restricted to the global sysop wikis, of course. Kylu 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Dumb question: Do you have your default-language set to English? If not, a button like [nátʼą́ąjigo] could have you fooled... Seb az86556 01:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
My default language is set to English. :) fr33kman t - c 01:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Alright. Support Support then. Seb az86556 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support per CU status on simplewp and gsysop. I-20the highway 02:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • This seems a bit silly, we should just enable globalrollback on all accounts that successfully pass a request for globalsysop. (So, I support). Tiptoety talk 05:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Per Tiptoety. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support (idem Tiptoety) --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support per Tiptoety - could we evensnowball-close it? --Aphaia 09:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --dferg ☎ talk 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support per all above πr2 (talk · contributions) 18:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Yeah, okay. Pmlineditor  11:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support as this tool should really be given automatically to global sysops. -Barras 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Yes check.svg Done granted --Jyothis 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Requests for global sysop permissions

Global sysop for Jafeluv

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I'd like you to consider entrusting me with global sysop rights. I often nominate nonsense pages for deletion in wikis with few or no active sysops, and I think I should be able to delete them by now instead of posting to the steward request page every time or waiting for a local admin to come along. I'm a sysop on the English Wikipedia since September 2009 and also already have global rollback. I'm familiar with the use of sysop tools and could use the rights in crosswiki vandal fighting. Thanks for your consideration! Jafeluv 01:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[]

  • Too many tabs open to keep track of what I'm doing. Ignore me. Avicennasis 14:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Looks good to me, now that I've been corrected. :) Avicennasis 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Yes check.svg Done by Shanel - Hoo man 19:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks for your support, everyone! Jafeluv 22:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Global sysop for BRUTE

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello there, I'd like to request for global sysop rights. First, I wish to say that I have sysop rights here on Meta, on Mediawiki and on Wikisource, also have global rollback rights (verify). I'm quite familiar with this tool. Besides I'm cross-wiki vandal fighter I also often tag nonsense pages for deletion. I believe I'll be more helpful for small wikis as a global sysop. Thank you for your consideration! –BruTe talk 09:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[]

  • Support Support high crosswiki activity - Hoo man 11:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 17:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support No objection Hercule 23:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support. Active crosswiki contributor, would certainly be a net benefit with the extra tools. Jafeluv 06:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Active x-wiki contributor. Fridae'sDoom 10:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support JenVan (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support--George M. 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - Quite active as I recall. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Why not? Looks good to me. Avicennasis 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I can see only positives coming from BRUTE being a global sysop. fr33kman t - c 11:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - @lestaty discuţie 02:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, support. NonvocalScream 23:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Active crosswiki contributor and can be trusted. Pmlineditor  07:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • support - will do a good work. -Barras talk 19:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support SupportDerHexer (Talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Yes check.svg Done best of luck with the new role --Jyothis 19:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks to all. :-) –BruTe talk 04:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Global sysop for Fr33kman

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! I am asking for the global sysop flag. I am an active checkuser, crat and oversighter on the Simple English Wikipedia and am often involved in the finding and blocking of crosswiki vandals and crosswiki sockpuppets. I also monitor #cvn-sw and am an active member of the SWMT. I tag pages on small wikis for speedy deletion and IIRC I have not had one turned down. I also revert obvious vandalism when I see it, (well as obvious as Google Translate can make it). I consider myself to be an admin who reflects before I act; but when I act I do so without fear and firmly. I feel I have a good working relationship with the stewards, the global admins and the other checkusers. It is my desire to further serve the WMF comunity by protecting my favourite type of wiki, the small wiki. fr33kman t - c 06:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]

  • Support Support obviously James (T C) 06:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - Trusted user. Tiptoety talk 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support And, thanks for helping with the small wikis :) --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Of course. --Bsadowski1 07:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Laaknor 07:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Easy decision here. Avicennasis 07:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support; helpful. –BruTe talk 09:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Neutral Neutral low cross wiki activity, but trusted - Hoo man 11:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
    I'd counter that I actually have a high cross-wiki activity, but have tended to ask other people to perform actions that I can't do because I've got no ability to do them: often asking for help from others via IRC. As a checkuser, I get into cross-wiki activities all the time that never show up on my contribs. I have often found myself needing to perform an action, but unable to do so. I'm asking for global sysop so I can act, rather than asking someone else to. fr33kman t - c 12:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Then I'll Support Support, because you seem to have a good reason to request it. But you aren't as activ in the SWMT as you told us above (from my point of view) - Hoo man 12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Active in SWMT not only means reverting and tagging edits for deletion, it also means reviewing them and deciding there is no need for action. I revert when it is right, tag for deletion when needed and do nothing when it is correct to do so. fr33kman t - c 11:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Yes. Unfortunately, there's no record of such activity. That's why it seems some people resort to tagging for the sake of creating a record. I'm glad you're not one of them. Seb az86556 12:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[]
If no action is needed, that's a good thing: it doesn't mean the watcher is not active, just that they have nothing to do. 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I know that theres no log for that kind of actions, but if you really do that regularly you would have more reverts. I'm doing it myself for a few weeks now and I'm frequently coming over vandalism. - Hoo man 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support. NonvocalScream 11:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I-20the highway 19:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ;) Diego Grez return fire 20:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Helpful sysop, can be trusted. Fridae'sDoom 07:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Nifky? 08:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support PiRSquared17 08:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Seb az86556 12:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 03:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - @lestaty discuţie 02:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • support per above. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Please note that this is not a bad-faith vote. While I may have a conflict of interest, the diffs I provide are open to interpretation and speak for themselves. 1) Failure to assume good faithBlocked user after CU confirmed that s/he vandalized under IPs. A cursory glance at user's edits reveals nothing vandalistic. 2) Declined unblock from a user he blocked. Does not comprehend the involved policy. The purpose of an unblock request is to obtain a second opinion, not for the blocking admin to decline it. Most admins are bound to decline an unblock from someone whom they blocked because they don't want to admit error. 3) Prone to pursue whims: unblocked user after a patronising decline message. The user did not request unblock again, but merely asked "Is this block permanent??" Fr33kman arbitrarily unblocks the user. Not firm about the decline. It is also important to note that Fr33kman reported the user "to all the other checkusers and the stewards so that checks of you can be done on the other projects". Such actions are too extreme for what the user did. 4) Prone to hold grudges — see here. 4) That the next diffs came from a discussion about me is irrelevent. Regardless of the circumstance, the sentiments expressed are alarming. In this and this, Fr33kman is more concerned with who is "winning" and who is being made to look like "idiots" than what is best for the project.
    As the only oppose, I hope that the closing bureaucrat places the appropriate weight to my words. Again, I'm putting these diffs up for scrutinising so that the community can evaluate them and to ensure the best for this project. Note that I did not mention anything that Fr33kman did to me. Codedon 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]
    Er, this oppose is in retaliation to you local block. Thanks, NonvocalScream 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]
    So... are you collecting blocks like others do stamps or bottlecaps? Seb az86556 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Trustworthy and knows what he is doing. Pmlineditor  07:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • support - will do a good job. -Barras talk 19:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support SupportDerHexer (Talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --dferg ☎ talk 11:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support SJ · talk | translate 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support no worry, and he is highly available. --Aphaia 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Grunny (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • +Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Sure. --Erwin 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[]
    Yes check.svg Done - promoted. --dferg ☎ talk 14:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Thanks to all! fr33kman t - c 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Global sysop for Effeietsanders

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I would like to request global sysop status. I have been steward for some years, and recently resigned because I dont think I am actively enough using those tools to justify the access to privacy related data (such as checkuser, oversight etc). Currently I am sysop and bureaucrat on nlwiki and sysop on a few smaller wikis. While working on OTRS however, it is highly useful to be able to view deleted entries and give people an explanation on why something got deleted or what happened to a page. I might help out when there is need to for crosswiki work - but I'll be fair in saying I dont think that will be the main use for this tool. I will not use it dayly, but it would definitely be useful, and I think that considering my experience as a steward, I can be trusted not to use them foolishly. Effeietsanders 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]

  • Support Support ;) Laaknor 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • ^ –Juliancolton | Talk 13:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - Should have steward rights instead.  :) NonvocalScream 23:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Perfectly fine, but should just get steward back. fr33kman t - c 11:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose, let's restore stewards rights! :) LeinaD (t) 12:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Agree woth above, I think it's better to give him the steward mop back. -Barras talk 19:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support, although I'd prefer the same procedure as with dferg. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Steward bit would be better. --Jyothis 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Approval for global sysop does not preclude granting the steward flag. We can do these serially. Kylu 20:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - @lestaty discuţie 21:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --dferg ☎ talk 11:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support; Is trusted. –BruTe talk 11:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support; Highly trusted - Hoo man 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 12:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support PiRSquared17 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support (-: SJ · talk - translate 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Strongly oppose, Support Support, which might be more helpful. --Aphaia 04:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Grunny (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - but please stay also active at nl-wiki - Robotje 18:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Give steward-rights instead but if you can't take it I'll Support Support. I-20the highway 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • + Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Definitely. --Erwin 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Seems like a valid reason to be a global sysop. Obviously very trusted already. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[]
    • Done - Wutsje 11:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Global editinterface for Kaldari

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm a developer for the Wikimedia Foundation, an admin on and commons, and a member of the OTRS team. I have staff rights on a separate staff account, but I reserve use of that strictly for work-related tasks. I'm involved in various multi-wiki projects and am currently assisting smaller wikis with the Vector roll-out. It would be useful if I could have global sysop rights in order to be able to edit Mediawiki namespace pages on those wikis to fix Vector-related bugs, etc. Kaldari 18:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Wouldn't it be more suitable to request global editinterface? - Hoo man 20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Agree. This doesn't seem like a vandal-fighter request. Seb az86556 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Moved to global editinterface request. Kaldari 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
The reason you have staff-rights is excactly for this kind of stuff... Laaknor 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
My job does not currently involve Vector issues (I'm a developer for fundraising). I'm undertaking this as a community member, not as a staff member. Kaldari 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I don't see why not, already a trusted user as dev and as staff --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 23:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Now Support Support - reasonable. Seb az86556 23:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - This fits the need better. Maximillion Pegasus 23:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support trusted user as dev and as staff --Hercule 23:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Can't see why not. Jafeluv 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Yes check.svg Done speedy. Laaknor 08:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Requests for global IP block exemptions

Other requests

Allow Commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is kind of a special request, could be quite controversial; I'm posting it here, because I can't find a better place.

Us commons admins daily deal with images, which have been transferred from other projects. In most cases the transfers are ok, but sometimes Users don't use CommonsHelper or an previously unidentified bug leads to the corruption of transfers. For example, a while ago, we had to deal with a number of images from, which were transfered using CommonsHelper, but all OTRS information got lost & a lot of images had been already deleted on de.wp, so we had to find de.wp admins to readd the information. Also, we have a category of 860 images where users only uploaded a resized thumbnail of the original image. Most of the source images have been deleted, so right now the only the only way to fix them is to post the images one by one to the different ANI boards of wikipedias of languages we often don't speak, wait a while till they're hopefully undeleted, do a correct transfer, post at the ANI board again afterwords to get the files redeleted.

For these reasons i feel that it would be extremely helpful, if Commons admins had, on default or per single request, the ability to view (but not restore or redelete etc. ) deleted images on the other wikipedias. I'll cross post this to the commons ANI, because I'm not sure how active this page is. Sincerly, --DieBuche 11:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]

First, this page it quite active (may not now, cause of wikimania...). To your request, this isn't as easy as it sounds, cause for now, there is now permission in mediawiki that lets you view deleted files but not pages. Because of that, such users would be able to see all deleted pages as well, or we make a bugzilla report and wait till such a userright gets implemented. I think that this global group should be only for a couple of commons admins (there is no need for such a high count of users with access to all deleted files on all wikis). - Hoo man 11:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
I believe that Bugzilla report already exists; see bugzilla:14801. LX (talk, contribs) 11:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
As a Commons Administrator it would be handy to be able to view files which have been moved from a local Wiki and to check for copyright violations (which have been deleted on wiki's and suspect on Commons). It is a pain to keep asking an Wiki Administrator to check the image. Though I can see Hoo man's point, it is going to rather difficult to have such right. Bidgee (Talk) 11:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
This was approved about two years ago, but is being held up (indefinitely?) because of a technical issue. See Global deleted image review for more. NW (Talk) 11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Thanks NW - must have missed that. It really would be useful to be able to check that folk who have uploaded copyvios to individual project are uploading the same files to Commons. It should happen but I understand the concerns. --Herby talk thyme 11:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support. --Túrelio 12:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Ok, didn't know this has been approved before, but: We got consensus on implementing it (and oversighting has long been implemented) and we also have a patch ready. So what are we waiting for?--DieBuche 12:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
If you need this "now", it's probably best to create a new policy about global "view deleted content"-right, and allow users to get this right like we already have for global rollback, global sysop, etc. The policy can contain a requirement that the user has sysop-rights on commons, something that would let it be easier to give out the rights for stewards, but automatic rights globally related to commons adminsship is not something that can be created by stewards, and will require development from a developer. Laaknor 12:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Besides the additional technical effort of implementing automatic rights, I also agree with the reservation of Hoo man, that giving it to 250+ admins at commons might be a bit too much. --DieBuche 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Edit: Automatically granting the right already passed the vote, would we need another vote to only partially implement the proposed policy? Would granting the right on a case-by-case basis not require any code changes?--DieBuche 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I completely support this setup. As NuclearWarfare said, this was already approved a couple years ago. But hasn't been possible to enable. Meanwhile, if something is needed *right now* please contactme (I'm a commons sysop and also I'm able to view deleted images on other wikis) es:Drini 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Seems like a most sensible and logical proposal. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support At first this seemed a bit much for me to support, but then I realised that lots of admin work at Commons deals with images from other Wikimedia projects, and this should make things far easier for the Commons admins. After all, Commons admins aren't elected willynilly; if they're trustworthy at Commons, they should be worthy of looking at deleted images on other WMF wikis. Nyttend 02:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • I think it is obvious there is consensus for this (judging by the already passed proposal). And I think that if the stewards could, they would implement it. But, as stated above, they cannot. They do not have the technical ability to do so. This is a developer issue, and probably needs to be raised at a different venue. Tiptoety talk 02:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • As Tiptoety. We need a developer here, not a steward. We can create a global group but there is no view-only-deleted-images permission without granting them full access to all deleted pages in all wikis. Permissions needs to get granularizated or the sysop bit at commons changed, but either way we can not do nothing but waiting for a fix. Feel free to add more votes on the bugzilla ticket. --dferg ☎ talk 08:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Not done. This can not be implemented by stewards, but has to be done by developers. A steward could only create a global group allowing users to view all deleted content on all projects. However, that would not be limited to the image namespace and is not what is agreed upon in Global deleted image review. As such, that can not be done by stewards either at this moment. --Erwin 09:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Global FlaggedRevs sysop permissions for "staff" group

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We would like to give Wikimedia Foundation staff accounts the "movestable", "stablesetting", and "review" permissions, which are permissions recently granted to sysops on enwiki (Pending Changes/FlaggedRevs). This is consistent with Requests for comment/Wikimedia Foundation staff permissions, which proposed that WMF staff members get sysop permissions if they are needed for their job.

It was pointed out in the BZ request for this (bug 24312) that the user rights from extension are not listed on meta (Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/Staff), because FlaggedRevs is not installed there. However, it might be possible to change it on enwiki (en:Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/Staff) -- RobLa 16:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[]

"if it's needed for their job". Can you please explain why the Foundation Staff needs to change the flaggedrev-status on every wiki as part of their job? Laaknor 15:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[]
And do you know that Polish community granting editor rights only persons who know Polish? (in other words, "review" permissions requires language skills to know what you want to mark as sighted or remove incorrect edition) LeinaD (t) 15:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[]
The specific case we've been solving for is for staff members that need to execute office actions. See Philippe's recent actions for the set of examples that prompted us to request this. -- RobLa 21:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[]
Why didn't he use w:en:User:Philippe (WMF) for that? --MZMcBride 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[]
  • Ah, procedural X mark.svg Not done by stewards. Rationale:
    1. In regards to community standards for access, they are not really applicable to the Foundation and the employees that are granted access.
    2. If you do need actual changes done to non-Community groups, such as Staff and Sysadmins, and need assistance in modifying them, they're to be performed by other staff members. I would suggest asking the volunteer coordinator, personally. Kylu 02:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[]