||Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Requests for global rollback permissions
Global rollback for JenVan
The following request is closed.
Hello there! I would like to get global rollback for more operative vandalism reverting. I understand the GR policy and think this flag will be useful for me. Example of my anti-vandalism work you can find at commons, en-wikibooks, ru-wiki and other projects. Thanks, JenVan (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please. Active and trustworthy crosswiki contributor. Jafeluv 19:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Silver Spoon 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support, why not? Trijnstel 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Contributions look good, could obviously benefit from this tool. Ajraddatz 23:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Ajraddatz - Hoo man (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Sure, why not? –BruTe talk 09:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Even if I find that JenVan's crosswiki activity is a bit recent, I'm sure that we can trust him. The SWMT needs some help. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support, don't you have it yet? --Microcell 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- yes --- @lestaty discuţie 22:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly. sonia 07:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support MoiraMoira 17:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support not a problem to me. --Herby talk thyme 17:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support Olivier Bommel 16:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
--dferg ☎ talk
16:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The following request is closed.
I'd like to ask for global rollback permission. As an active member of the #SWMT, I normally fight against vandalism on small wikis, and I am often on IRC in the related channel. I understand the GR policy, once I have a lot of anti-vandalism experience as administrator on Portuguese Wikipedia (verify - contribs) and rollbacker on English Wikipedia (verify - contribs).
Some of my anti-vandalism global edits:
It would be quit usefull to have global rollback, because this tool should make countervandalism easier and faster.
Regards, Ruy Pugliesi◥ 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - At first I was going to oppose on the grounds that I have no clue who you are, and have never seen you revert before. However, after looking through that nice long list there I think that you have sufficient experience required for these rights, and would benefit from them. Ajraddatz 20:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- no reason why not Mardetanha talk 21:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - The user does an excellent job in several wikis, particularly in Lusophone Wikipedia, deserving so the global rollbacker. ChristianH 21:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly Support - Ruy is a amazing user. He work in crosswiki vandalisms, the flag will be very useful to him, consequently, for the wikipedia project.. MetalBRasil @ # 21:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly Support - Pugliesi does an excellent job as sysop on Lusophone Wikipedia and is very active as rollbacker in other Wikipedias. Roberto de Lyra 21:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oposse - the excellent job start when he lost his flags (CU and crat) in pt.wiki and go edit in others wikis to avoid answer the questions in pt.wiki, when the community is waiting for his explanations about his problems as a CU. I don't have any - any - trust in this user anymore, never would give him any flag in a wiki project. Béria Lima msg 22:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Other thing, he only have more than 10 edits in 14 wikis - and that include pt.wiki, en.wiki and testwiki (when he have flags), commons, meta, and sistes projects of pt.wiki (I myself - who don't do crosswiki work - have +10edits in 25 projects). No experience. Béria Lima msg 22:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Béria says: "the excellent job start when he lost his flags (CU and crat) in pt.wiki". This is called Dissemination of mistrust (politic of ptwiki), or you are twisting facts to give a bad impression of the Ruy. You know very well that he lost the flags as time expired, and there would be new elections. Ruynot the positions lost by abuse, ie, there was never a loss of jobs administrative abuse. Please stop posting falsehoods in order to cause bad faith on the Ruy. Only post facts. MetalBRasil @ # 23:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. We still waiting some explanations at pt Arbcom about some possible problems as a CU. Maybe later. Leandro Martinez msg 00:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. As MetalBrasil said, Ruy is working very hard against cross-wiki vandalisms. Samurai BruxoMerry Christmas! 01:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I sincerely apologize to all for Beria's behavior, which has already led her to have her administrator, bureaucrat and checkuser rights revoked per community decision, and later, to be blocked in Lusophone Wikipedia with an expiry time of 3 days and lose her autopatrolled flag on MetaWiki due to personal attackswarning. Metawiki is not place for that.
First, let me clarify that I've never had any permission removed per community and/or ArbCom decison, as she's had. Never. On ptwiki, I also was an arbitrator (February 2009 - February 2010), bureaucrat (November 2009 - November 2010) and CheckUser (May 2009 - November 2010); I don't have these permissions anymore only because my terms expired in November 2010 and there are not elections scheduled in Lusophone Wikipedia. I'm still a highly trusted user on Portuguese Wikipedia, such that two users who have been blocked by me, (, ) have expressed here favorably to my request.
Excluding ptwiki, enwiki and testwiki, I still have about ~700 edits only related to countervandalism work on small wikis. You can see that through my cross wiki contributions. In fact, I have more than 10 edits in 14 wikis, but I have edits (only countervandalism work) in more than 70 wikis, the same amount of edits that most users have before requesting for global rollback permission, at least according to the archived requests. I've been also reverting vandalisms in hindi, albanian, egyptian arabic, russian, tibetan, azerbaijani... and so on. And I always notice the vandals, something that a lot of global rolbackers don't make.
Best regards, Ruy Pugliesi◥ 01:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why this diffs about Beria if we are talking about your flag? Leandro Martinez msg 01:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here, we aren't discussing "global rollback for Beria". If you want to prove that she is not trusted in ptwiki, then I think it's not the proper place to point that out. — Tanvir • 08:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose Sorry, I dont trust in this user. --- @lestaty discuţie 02:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, for now. I don't know this user personally, but as I can see there is an ArbCom case is going in ptwiki on possible abuse check where Ruy is involved. I would like to wait and see the result of that case. Global rights are matter of trust, it ain't funny business. — Tanvir • 08:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen Ruy around, and he has my trust. PeterSymonds 15:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Good editor. Mário Henrique 18:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent user. OffsBlink 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support. One of the most experienced users for the job! Belanidia 20:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, not until that CheckUser issue is not clarified. Sorry for that. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know this user personally either, but I'm concerned by what the others have pointed out. I would like to know more about that "possible abuse" of checkuser tools. In the mean time I'll say Oppose. Elfix 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, my reason is here. GRS73 22:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly Support. Ruy is one of the most dedicated users of pt.wiki and I'm sure global rollback will be very useful for him. Also, I would like to state that pt.wiki is full of conflicts that cause many local problems (actually, tempests in teapots), because some users are always attempting to harm people they don't like, so I think it mustn't affect things off-pt.wiki. ThiagoRuiz 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Before being occupied with global problems, he needs first to solve the problems involving him in his home wiki (pt.wiki). Vini 175 02:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Even if this user says he is active on the SWMT team, I have never met him there. Moreover, I'm not comfortable with the idea of seeing the whole community of ptwiki turning up on meta to massively support as it was a local election. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly support. One of the best sysops in ptwiki, he's dedicated and has a thorough knowledge of the documentation, and I trust he'll do with this flag the good work he has long been doing in other projects. As for some of the comments above, Ruy has long been the object of a vicious campaign by a group of a few users who have personal issues with him, so I'm not surprised to see they coming here in order to attempt to jeopardize his request. RafaAzevedo 14:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, per DerHexer. --FiliP ██ 22:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
While we appreciate your help in crosswiki vandal fighting, the lack of consensus among the community (both internal and external to ptwiki) and concerns raised here leads me to close this as not done. I would recommend that you tie the loose ends soon and re-apply at a later time while you stay active without the flag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jyothis (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Global rollback for Rehman
The following request is closed.
I have previously requested global rollback here, primarily for the
autopatrol flag that comes with it. But back then, users here mentioned that they don't come together, hence I withdrew that request. Now that global rollback mentioned that
autopatrol comes as part of this flag, I would like to request this. I occationally perform file-related edits over multiple wikis, and would like my edits to be marked patrolled to reduce work. I am also an admin and image-reviewer at Commons, and a reviewer and rollbacker at en.wiki. Rehman 15:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, well, that's not what GR is intended to be. Sulutil does not tell me that you edited so many wikis yet to really need that. But we could consider creating a global group for that issue … —DerHexer (Talk) 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. For your info, the talkpage of this page has information on my previous request. I look forward to a new GlobalAutoreviewer group, or the GlobalRollback flag, whichever can come faster :) Kind regards. Rehman 15:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's really an issue in the first place, to be honest. GR wasn't meant for content edits, although some of its features like the autopatrolled flag and the ability to suppress redirects can be used for more than just vandal fighting. If a project finds that someone's edits don't need patrolling they can just give that user a local autopatrolled flag, can't they? Jafeluv 15:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, though most wikis only assign it to those active in article creation. I really don't understand the reason for the request - you don't do that much global work, your edits are already autopatrolled on commons, and commons is the only wiki that does a lot of heavy patrolling. Most patrolling on other wikis is done with the new page patrol, and you don't seem to be at all globally active in that... Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. It doesn't bother me if you're more interested in the autopatrol flag that comes with global rollback, but I'd like to see more requisite small wiki anti-vandalism work before you are granted GR. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - you haven't proven any need for it. Also, autopatrol is not anything that we should give out - it's each wiki that you edit on that should give you if they feel like it (they are the ones that have to do patrolling). Laaknor 22:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I don't "really need" it, it's just that I have noticed that some of the smaller wikis still have pending changes of the edits I made quite sometime back; clear signs of unnecessary backlog, as the cross-wiki edits I do are pretty much to do with files, and never content (as I don't know any other language well enough to make such edits), and thus really are uncontroversial. A global autopatrol flag could really be helpful. But as you said, GR is something different, thus I accept your reasons for oppose. Just one question though, will the global autopatrol flag ever be created? Rehman 00:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Fastily and Laaknor. To answer to your question, I don't really see the need of creating a global autopatrol group... You should read Laaknor's comment again. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess you're right. Sorry for the double post (my previous request some time back). Thanks for taking the time to clarify. This request can now be closed. Thanks! :) Rehman 14:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- (Not) done - As you wish. Wutsje 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Global rollback for Ajraddatz
The following request is closed.
Hello all, I'm Ajraddatz, a user who has been active in the SWMT for about 45 days now. During that time, I have reverted about 600 edits across 68 wikis. I also hadn't realized that I've done so little before filing this request. Anyways, regardless of that, I'd like to request global rollback so that I can be more effective in reverting cross-wiki vandalism, and more importantly than that, be able to revert large removals on wikis without needing to go through two captchas and an abuse filter.
I understand that rollback should only be used for reverting obvious vandalism, and I think that I have enough experience to know what vandalism is (with a little help from Chrome's auto translator). Examples of my edits can be found here. I also have considerable countervandalism experience on Wikia, and I can provide examples of that on request.
I realize that I do not have the amount of reverts that most people requesting this right do, however, it is only rollback, and I'd really like to be able to revert a large removal in under 3 minutes, as well as being able to more efficient at revert vandalism in general. Thanks for your consideration. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really see a need for it as the edits you have xwiki are mostly xwiki and those places you are active at you have rollback. Could you tell us more about what you plan to do if granted the flag and why you are asking for it now. fr33kman 20:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure? As a (semi) regular patroller of #cvn-sw, I've seen him revert vandalism on many different wikis. Maximillion Pegasus 20:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, the wikis that I have the most edits on I already have rollback. However, I have also reverted many cases of vandalism on wikis that I do not have rights on123456. I am asking for the flag for two reasons; first, my connection is rather slow, and even with reverts of small changes to an article undo is rather slow for me. I like helping out, but I like doing so in an efficient way. On Wikia I was able to have a global script that allowed for one-click reverting, but that won't work here due to the variety of the languages that I'm reverting on. However, what prompted me to request this was actually the captchas on some wikis where I am not autoconfirmed (such as es.wikipedia and uk.wikimedia yesterday). While es.wikipedia is by no means a small wiki, reverting the edits to this page caused me to go through a captcha, an abuse filter and another captcha. Being able to revert vandalism in one click, as well as being able to revert it without needing to go through anti-spam measures will allow me to revert vandalism more efficiently. If I am granted the flag, I will continue to do what I am now; reverting vandalism that I see through various CVN channels. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- Seen him around; confident he will use the tool wisely. Maximillion Pegasus 20:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, sure and has any experience imo. Trijnstel 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, very experienced. Mr. Berty (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, why not - Hoo man (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sufficient x-wiki experience for me to support. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support, Active enough, why not? –BruTe talk 10:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
-- Dferg ☎ talk
11:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Requests for global sysop permissions
Requests for global editinterface permissions
Requests for global ip block exemption permissions
Global IP block exempt for Paul 1953
I do not quite understand why my IP has been globally blocked. I am currently unable to edit on Wikipedia due to this block.
According to whatismyip.com, my IP Address is 126.96.36.199. According to my computer however, my IP Address is 192.168.2.4.
Thanks, --Paul 1953
- Odd, according to stalktoy for 188.8.131.52 there's no global block that would affect that IP. The 192.168.2.4 address is a local network address which isn't used on the internet - One is assigned to systems on home networks by the router, for instance. Let's see what some others think about this ... I probably just missed something in my first check. Kylu 13:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe he means 184.108.40.206?  That IP is globally blocked. Jafeluv 13:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- See? Missed something. Kylu 14:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- 192.168.2.4 is your internal IP-address (within your home Network), 220.127.116.11 is the IP address that is used for the Internet (so the relevant one). But 18.104.22.168 has neither a global block (1) or a local block on enwiki (1) on it (it even hasn't got any contributions 1), so it might be the wrong IP address (the IP address you made this contribution with has been globally blocked (1), so I presume it's the right one). But that doesn't really matter.
- Notice: To receive a global flag you need a global account account - Hoo man (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if you only edit enwiki you can request local IP block exemption there. No need for a global flag. Jafeluv 14:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Paul 1953 here. I can't edit my talk page. By the way, reason given for block was open proxy. 14:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've given you local exemption on the English Wikipedia. PeterSymonds 17:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not done - local exemption as granted by PeterSymonds seems to be enough. Thanks you Peter. - Andre Engels 14:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Global IP block exempt for Mys_721tx
The following request is closed.
My SSH proxy was blocked because of Open proxying, but I have to use it to transmit files to Commons and make necessary editting in other sites besides Chinese Wikipedia through this proxy because the all-known-wall blocked some of WMF servers, thanks, --Mys_721tx(talk) 15:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- Wutsje 08:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Global IP block exempt for Srkris
The following request is closed.
Hi, I am in the UAE and most UAE IPs are blocked as open proxies (though they are not, maybe it is a problem with the way the UAE state ISP assigns the IPs), and I am not able to edit even when I login to my user ID. Please exempt my user ID from all IP based blocks, thanks, --Srkris 07:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. FYI Global IP block exemption only exempts you from global blocks. If the IPs you're using are locally blocked GIPBE won't exempt you from them and you'll need to ask any administrator to grant you the 'ipblock-exemption' flag locally. Are you being afected by IPs globally blocked or only for locally blocked ones (or both)? Regards, --dferg ☎ talk 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have a global block, and that's what I am seeking exemption from. I am not able to edit WP whether I am logged in or not.Srkris 20:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- Wutsje 08:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Global IP block exempt for Sameboat
I recently receive temporary global IP block for open proxy (22.214.171.124) which I have no idea how I trigger it, might be my ISP. I'm a trusted active Wikipedian who work mainly in Chinese and English WP and Commons, sometimes Russian and other WP for operational task such as interwiki or file rename due to wrong title or complex template syntax. My local userright has already been modified to be IP block exemption in ZH and EN WP. User:Shizhao recommends me to request the global exemption here. Thanks. -- Sameboat 14:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The ip you mention does not appear to be blocked globally. Is 126.96.36.199 (which is blocked locally on zh:wiki) really the ip you mean? Wutsje 08:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've encountered the same block everywhere in Wikimedia projects (Russian & French WP, Commons and Meta). The IP block was generally being activated by User:Shizhao periodically every half to 1 month. Before the local exemption, while the block message said the block may last for a long period like 9 months or so, I may be able to submit my content after few minutes, but still irritating. I can't say for sure, but I believe the global block isn't currently activated. You may ask Shizhao about his IP block history. -- Sameboat 04:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Encountered block in Commons today again:
You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason:
Your IP address, 188.8.131.52, has been automatically identified as a tor exit node. Editing through tor is blocked to prevent abuse.
-- Sameboat 08:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- Wutsje 13:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)