Steward requests/Global permissions/2013-05

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

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for The Illusive Man

Mainly for Simple.Wikipedia and fr.Wikipedia. I am already a prolific rollbacker on en.Wikipedia and have an interest in acting through SWMT, especially as a vandal mass reverter on fr.Wikipedia using rollback dependent tools such as Huggle. For security reasons, I have Identified to the Foundation. I would find this extremely helpful. Thank you for all your reviews, in my favour or otherwise. -The Illusive Man(Contact) 00:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Oppose You've only edited on 5 wikis, which generally is insufficient for this tool. If you edited more wikis though I might support in the future. --Rschen7754 00:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) You already have rollback rights on simple.wikipedia. On frwiki, however, you have 0 edits currently. Please note that global rollback is for users "active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities [...] [who] make heavy use of revert on many wikis". You might be interested in User:Snowolf/How to globally TWINKLE. --MF-W 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Snowolf, I have undergone the steps to set that up! I appreciate the pointers. :) -The Illusive Man(Contact) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I do not see that much has changed since your last request in October. Please become more active in global anti-vandalism fighting first (the best way to help is the SWMT). Kind regards, Vogone talk 00:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. It's just a little tricky for me to be an effective SWMT member from the IRC equipment, as I really can't figure out NickServ or any of the simple technical gears that make it work through the client; I was going to do it locally because that was simpler, but, per editors above, I see now that that really is not what the permission is intended for. All the best! -The Illusive Man(Contact) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Trijnstel! The story behind my OTRS application is that I've been enthusiastically trying to become a volunteer on OTRS for quite some time now, but had to wait to turn 18 and for this [1] to happen before I stood a chance of access! I got distracted dabbling at Toolserver and now have gotten around to what I originally intended to do with my identification status, which is apply to the OTRS info-en queue. :) -The Illusive Man(Contact) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Vogone. Trijnstel's link and the fact that you've already made a failed request for GR almost implies hat-collecting, at least to me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jasper, I was having a bad day until I read this. Then I realized that without the context I've fleshed out above, and, given what others can see, this can look bad! I laughed at myself for a few solid minutes. I hope to dispel any air of hat collecting by SNOWing this request myself, as others have convinced me I have no technical reason to propose the bit. Have a great day! :) -The Illusive Man(Contact) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Rschen7754. Lukas²³ 21:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • X mark.svg Not done, withdrawing request per Snowolf above. I don't need this right now. Thank you to all who participated in this shenanigan of mine, I probably won't ever be re-requesting global rights, as I don't need them to use tools like Twinkle to revert vandalism. Cheers all! -The Illusive Man(Contact) 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Pratyya Ghosh

Hi, I'm Pratyya Ghosh. I'm active at English, Bengali, Simple wiki. Moreover I work on Bengali Wikitionary and a little at Wikidata. I have rollback privileges at English and Simple Wiki. But I don't have rollback rights at other wikis. I want global rollback rights so I can rollback any vandalism in any wiki without requesting that wiki. In English Wikipedia and Simple Wiki and Sometimes (these days none) in Bengali Wiki you have Twinkle. So you can "revert" a vandalism. But most wikis doesn't have twinkle. So you need to undo an vandalism. I was in this situation many times. So this right will help me to revert vandalisms. In addition I mostly do anti-vandal work at all the wikis. I have had a w:WP:CVUA training on English Wiki. So I know fully about vandalism. Please ask me questions before accepting or declining my request.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can use Twinkle globally. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose as you only reverted vandalism in 3 different wikis. Per PiRSquared17, you can use Twinkle everywhere, so I don't see a need for the tools. Lukas²³ 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information Twinkle is a gadgeted option at bn wiki, but due to some technical problem twinkle is not available in whole bn wiki.--Pratyya (Hello!) 11:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read this page: How to globally install Twinkle. Thanks, PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose no need for the tools. --Rschen7754 20:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask you why do you think this?--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because you don't make enough reverts on wikis where you do not have rollback to need the tools. --Rschen7754 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above. Please become active on SWMT first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Not enough cross wiki experience --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya. I'm not active on too much wikis. Just en wiki, simple wiki, bn wiki, bn wiktionary, commons wiki. And sometimes meta wiki.--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Per above. I don't see much activity related to reverting vandalism on different wikis. --Wiki13 talk 11:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll see if I reverted them. I said earlier I don't like undoing vandals. So I don't try to undo them. thats the reason Wiki13.--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above--Steinsplitter (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose --cyrfaw (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, I have a question. Anybody can answer it. But after you answer give me a notification. My question is when will you think I'm eligible for this right?--Pratyya (Hello!) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to demonstrate extensive cross-wiki counter-vandalism activity, which usually entails being part of SWMT. Unless you commit yourself to that, it's unlikely you'll be able to get this right. Sorry.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can't you just use global Twinkle? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Cause if you have rollback, it helps you revert vandalism easily and in case of twinkle's failure you can revert vandalism. Btw I have followed every rule to install twinkle globally. Now you can send me confirmation. --Pratyya (Hello!) 05:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Once you demonstrate cross-wiki vandal fighting using Twinkle, you may request global rollback. Until then, though, Twinkle will be enough for your needs, in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you guys. For giving my request time and also giving me such good advices. Now I want to withdraw my request. So please take steps what is needed. Thank you. --Pratyya (Hello!) 09:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    X mark.svg Not done as the user has withdrawn. Snowolf How can I help? 09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for CoveyHill

Making wikimedia life much easier for me with global rollback. --CoveyHill (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Oppose: not enough experience. Also, can you explain why you're banned from the English Wikipedia? Mathonius (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Per rudeness from certain administrators. I wish to keep it under wraps.-- ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 00:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose You have only a little more than 200 edits globally.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your point of that? I have been editing since 2006. -- ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 00:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    Your experience is woefully inadequate for this permission, plus the ban on the English Wikipedia (which is almost always for a good reason; "rudeness from certain administrators" doesn't cut it) doesn't inspire any confidence. Global rollback is only given to users demonstrably active in cross-wiki vandalism fighting, and you do not appear to have that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bull. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) -- ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) User:CoveyHill|User talk:CoveyHill 03:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your arguments aren't constructive at all, do you have a point to show? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) --User:CoveyHill|User talk:CoveyHill 03:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are, just have a look at the relevant policy. Although users may interprete the formulations of this policy a bit variably, it is obvoius that you currently don't meet the requirements. Furthermore, the behaviour you display in this request reflects very poorly on your general suitability to hold any advanced permissions. Regards --Iste (D) 09:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jasper Deng's arguments do have a point here, which yours don't seem to have. Please read Global rollback and withdraw this request. Global rollback is for "users demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities", which you undoubtely are not. The fact that you have been editing since 2006 doesn't have any relevance here, specially when we consider that your account was only created in November 2012. Your editcount is far too low, and your behaviour here so far has not given me the impression you're somebody I'd like to trust with the global rollback flag. Savhñ 10:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Per above. --Wiki13 talk 11:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
X mark.svg Not done, and no need for a full process to determine that either. Snowolf How can I help? 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Addihockey10

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

Requesting restoration of global rights after non-controversial removal. Addihockey10 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, but why did you request yourself to be locked? --MF-W 23:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I requested to be locked because I knew I was going to be inactive for an extended period of time and I wished to prevent any possibility of my account being compromised during the duration of my inactivity. --Addihockey10 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmhm, I don't think that's a reasonable reason to request a lock (or get one done..) as locks are actually reserved to abusive users. --MF-W 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support - I don't think this discussion is necessary given that he was previously approved for this right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment From what I've seen I have no objection either, but I may not get the whole scene... -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --cyrfaw (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • &  last reverts are from 6 months ago, please become active enough to justify the request before requesting hats. The user does not fulfill the policy requirement that "users must be demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities" as his last significant activity in that field is from 6 months ago. As I point out regularly in other places, after an extended leave, the first thought of a returning user shouldn't be asking for hats. Snowolf How can I help? 06:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, I agree with Snowolf but I don't understand why the right was even removed either. As far as I see, there is no inactivity policy for GR and the right has only to be removed after abuse, which did not seem to have happened in this case. Regards, Vogone talk 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The account was locked, and global rights are always removed from locked accounts given locks only take place for serious abuse or other major problem. Snowolf How can I help? 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but this case appears to be different. The locking steward hasn't removed the permissions for a long time and they weren't at all until billinghurst did it shortly before the user reappeared. A comment by DerHexer here would be surely helpful, though. Greetings, Vogone talk 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I mentioned that he still had GR (on IRC), and Billinghurst removed it. I may have even asked for removal... I don't remember. I agree (in hindsight) that the rights probably shouldn't have been removed, but usually rights are removed from locked accounts. Locked users can't abuse global rights, but they might if/when they're unlocked (most locks are for major problems or abuse). PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Locked is meant to be locked; permanent; it is neither a frivolous tool nor action. Why would we leave rights attached to a locked account? We cannot do 'friends' deals or exceptions because someone is nice. It is illogical to expect otherwise. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    GR is to be removed after an account has abused his access, not after an account was locked temporarily per request. I see no section which says "locked users cannot hold GR access". Removing it was in fact against the policy as no abuse happened. No policy against account locking after request exists either. And even if the lock was inappropriate the right solution would have been to remove it, not to remove permissions from the account. Regards, Vogone talk 05:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What utter balderdash. Point 1) re Global locks; supported by Locked global account … please read the criteria for global locks; and it has been clear from stewards operating practice that self-requested global locks are not desired and not considered to be temporary. Point 2) There is zero, absolutely zero, evidence on meta to show that this was a temporary lock — nothing on the user's talk page, nothing on their user page, and nothing on the lock entry. To the point that the user has neither documented their request; presumably it has been done via IRC request, something that would seem to be pretty poor practice, especially in hindsight. Similarly there is no evidence for any judgement on whether the lock was appropriate or not. Point 3) Global rollback and this permissions page is silent on the removal of rights, however, Steward handbook#Removal of access gives direction; and requesting a lock would clearly be a removal of access under the evidence presented. Re removal there is no policy to support your claim that we can even remove global rollback rights for abuse. In fact if you read the policy on global rollback, it would appear that it is a steward's decision; though clearly the practice is that a proposal is put before the community. So please stop the nit-picking and deal with the matter in hand. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still only asking for a reason why the rights were removed, nothing more. 1) Yes, and the criteria wasn't met in this case. But how does it justify a user right removal, rather than an unlock? 2) I agree that an IRC request in this case was poor practice, but the lock comment is clear: "per request". That no abuse happened can be proved 1. by asking the locking steward and 2. by browsing the logs. I did both and came to this result. 3) Okay, removal is only defined for GS, not for GR, but there is still the possibility to use common sense. And I don't think "locked account" is a valid reason for removal of rights. As far as I see, Addihockey10 was not even notified of this removal. Furthermore, Steward handbook#Removal of access does not lead me to the outcome that "requesting a lock would clearly be a removal of [GR] access". I was just wondering because of the right removal and liked to hear a reason. My intention is not to annoy you. Regards, Vogone talk 16:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was stated by Snowolf in the first comment that it is stewards' practice to remove rights from locked accounts. To the rest, that commentary no longer belongs here, so if you want to have that conversation please take it to my talk page. I added the facts in my initial response, and we all need to remove extraneous debate from an approval process. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC we asked DerHexer (the locking steward) for an explanation, but he couldn't remember it anymore + had no logs etc. Trijnsteltalk 15:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support He has been quite active again at cvn-sw, so I see no reason to not hand it back. — ΛΧΣ21 21:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support, because of the fact that the user right removal seems ill-considered to me. No abuse happened and no inactivity policy for GR exists. The lock was a plain user request. Regards, Vogone talk 21:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Why is another full request necessary? He hasn't abused the tool and there's no inactivity policy for GR. Defender (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Perhaps the relevant policies should explicitly mention cases like this, where the user resigns/retires or is locked. Maybe have a reduced voting period or automatic restoration of rights?PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The first option seems rather pointless to me as 4 days aren't really reducible. I'm not sure about the second one as I don't see why the right should be even removed from a locked account like Addihockey10's was. Vogone talk 16:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Why not? -FASTILY 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Promoted --Bencmq (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Hahc21

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

I'd like to request the global rollback permission. I've been an SWMTer for some time and I've been using global twinkle ever since, but sometimes, due to the limitations of the tool, I've been unable to timely respond to vandalism on some wikis. Global rollback will improve my response time when reverting edits by avoiding annoying captchas or abuse filters, as well as giving me additional tools to fight vandalism. — ΛΧΣ21 16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, from what I have seen, his global edits/reverts and the crossactivity are good and sufficient enough for GR. Furthermore, the user is globally trusted so this is a valid request within the GR scope. Vogone talk 16:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{neutral}} (vote striked-through & voted oppose now, see below) GR might be useful for you, but I'm not fully convinced due to 2 failing RfAs on the English Wikipedia (1 and 2). Could you explain please? Trijnsteltalk 16:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I would wish for more experience, but I'd have no problems. @Trijnstel: those RfAs have little to do with global rollback. The English Wikipedia sets very high standards in their RfAs and people oppose for all sorts of reasons. In this case, the oppose reasons were hardly because of his experience in counter-vandalism activity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per his x-wiki activity. --Alan (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Activity is fairly recent, and I'm strongly concerned by the hat-collecting. Over this last half year, Hahc21 has requested a large amount of rights, which I have tried to list here, and most of the activity seems to focus on obtaining these rights:
Requests rollbacker & patroller (only to patrol 1 page)
Wikidata: Sysop & Oversight
es.wikinews: sysop, press editor, editor & reviewer
commons: License reviewer, file mover, patroller & translation admin
es.wikivoyage: RfA 1 & 2
es.wikibooks: RfA and rollback rollback
ptwiki: rollbacker
en.wikibooks: reviewer
This sums up to a total of 18 rights requests, all of which were made in 2013. In the 142 days we have had so far this year, it makes an average of one right request every 8 days. Most of these right requests were preceded by an increased activity, declining afterwards. See for example, his deletion log on eswikivoyage: Of his 27 deletions, 25 are within 24 hours of the successful closure of his RfA.
On top, Hahc has also requested access to OTRS and became a member of the Grants committee, status about which he bragged on eswiki's mailing list.
Aside from hat-collecting concerns, I am surprised to see him act as a bureaucrat, even though he isn't, closing a vote he himself is involved in.
I would recomend the user not to see rights as an objective, but as a tool. Because of the concerns I've mentioned, I am unsure whether he will continue contributing long-term whilst using the GR flag, and I would like to see a bit more than a few days' activity before supporting. Savhñ 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fj:User_talk:Hahc21 is also interesting. Request rollback on a small wiki where admins can't grant it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pfeew… 18 right requests in a half year are indeed much. Although, the fjwiki thing does not seem like a right request to me as Hahc21 seems to know that no rollback group exists there. Vogone talk 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I couldn't find the request itself either (just the admin's response), so I think it's fine. Closing the RfA on fjwiki after a week isn't bad, because often users with no comments/votes after a week just leave requests on SRP. This is no worse. There weren't any opposes or negative comments... PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And unbelievable that user (Tucoxn) got admin rights for 6 months instead of the usual 3 months for new admins without local votes. Trijnsteltalk 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is neither Hahc21's nor Tucoxn's fault. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it did happen. ;) Trijnsteltalk 20:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Savh: BTW, you even missed his last RfA on enwiki, so that'll make 19... Trijnsteltalk 18:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 18 requests is abnormal, but it alone is not indicative of hat-collection, because I feel Hahc21 has always had the best intentions when requesting rights. What distinguishes him from a hat-collector is that he does not request these rights simply because of their status. My support remains a weak one because of his rather low experience with SWMT.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per AGF. His reverts are good so far and I do not see how GR is a big deal.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, fully convinced by the points brought up by Savh. Trijnsteltalk 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • &  per the concerns brought up by Savh and Trijnstel. I am particularly not happy about the last enwiki RfA, where the candidate started writing his RfA before his restrictions were removed even, and merely published the day after or so. The restrictions were in admin-work related areas (Non Admin Closures) and this is troubling to me obviously. Snowolf How can I help? 18:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Savh; not much I can say that he hasn't said already. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • & ; thanks to Savh for putting the list together. While of course not every unsuccessful candidature should be held before someone all the time, there is a bit high number of them here... Additionally I took a look at some cw contributions randomly and think that you still need more experience in crosswiki vandal-fighting, e.g. I understand none of the reverts on sowiki and here there was a revert to a revision which included a non-existing infobox template. --MF-W 21:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw this request. I'd prefer to stay using Twinkle than going through this, thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 01:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as X mark.svg Not done per user request.—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 02:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Leitoxx

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

Revierto vandalism en es.Wikipedia con el flag de reversor y pt.Wikipedia con AVI. Mi pedido del flag global rollback es porque se me haría más fácil el trabajo a la hora de revertir en diferentes wikis. Actualmente tengo el flag de reversor en es.Wikipedia.

  • You have quite little cross-wiki experience, so I would say no for global rollback. But maybe User:Snowolf/How to globally TWINKLE would be something for you. Regards, Vogone talk 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you, please, explain why you are blocked on Commons and why all these recent requests for user rights?—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 14:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Leitoxx was also blocked 2 times on eswiki but granted rollback afterwards. But I don't think this is that relevant for this request as he is not that active globally, anyway. Vogone talk 14:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose SWMT experience is usually required for this right, so I have to oppose per Vogone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. Cross-wiki hat collector. See this. LlamaAl (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose No need for the gr bit. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above. --Rschen7754 19:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Jasper Deng--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Concerns with limited x-wiki experience and the block on Commons for vandalism. Defender (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Estimado Leitoxx, me parece obvio que no entiendes el objetivo de este permiso, y que aún no estás en condiciones para recibirlo. Te recomiendo que retires esta solicitud. Un saludo, Savhñ 19:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --cyrfaw (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Sinceramente, no acabo de comprender la obsesión por los permisos, porque desde luego no he visto ni un solo motivo que me haga votar a favor. Alan (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done There is clearly no consensus to add this user in the GR group. If you're really wanting to fight against vandalism and spam globally, you are welcome to join the SWMT team. But this status is clearly not needed to start helping, believe me... Also feel free to contact me if needed. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note: early closures are against meta policy. Vogone talk 21:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*facepalm* Vogone talk 21:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global sysop permissions

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for ks.magi

I'm using a vpn to access Internet because of the GFW. But my vpn server provider's ip is blocked globally on wikipedia. Some of my vpn's ip are:, Thay are not all because my server provider use load balancing on over 20 servers. Can i get global ip block exempt? --Ks.magi (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] is actually not blocked. Ruslik (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revoke request. I have find a way to choose a determined ip as vpn exports. Thanks for your patience. Ks.magi (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
X mark.svg Not done then. Trijnsteltalk 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Samosoboi

Hi, the ip has been blocked, We provided detailed explanation and verification to justify our corrections on our discussion page Hereby I modestly repeat my request to have ip exempt from universal block as it is a bona fide Virgin Media IP. I have looked into the reasons of this blocking sited as "abuse as source of XFF", which occurred due to an incidental use of another computer and will avoid such overlooks in the future. Your speedy assistance in this matter is highly appreciated. Thank you.

P.S. 'Ваш IP-адрес был заблокирован на всех вики. ' Блокировка была наложена Billinghurst ( При этом была указана следующая причина блокировки abuse as source of XFF.

  • начало блокировки: 14:13, 21 апреля 2013
  • окончание блокировки: 14:13, 21 июля 2013

Вы можете связаться с Billinghurst для обсуждения данной блокировки. Вы можете использовать функцию "Письмо участнику" только если при блокировке не был наложен запрет на её использование, а в настройках указан действующий адрес электронной почты. Ваш текущий IP-адрес . Samosoboi (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Samosoboi[reply]

Modified the block, so this request is not done. See Ticket:2013050110001427billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Darkjojo

Dear Billinghurst, First I would like to precise that I am just a normal user of Internet and Wikipedia. I have been contributing in Wikipedia for a couple of months then I couldnt use it because I'm travelling abroad. I think that it's because of that that I have been blocked. Could you please unblock me ? So that I can keep translating articles. If I did any mistakes could you please explain me what are they ? Thanks you. Best Regards

    Votre adresse IP (
   Votre identifiant de blocage (#477343).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkjojo (talk)

checked and is confirmed as funnelled through a proxy (open?). User is only at one wiki, and probably should seek local exemption. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
X mark.svg Not done Forwarded to frwiki local sysops. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for other global permissions

Abuse_filter_helper for Nemo bis

I would like to inform our Stewards and Meta that a user with global rights on his user_talk on svwiki pretends to not know basic netiquette. I do not require you to revoke the tools, I'm only here to inform you. -- Lavallen 19:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with Abuse filter global rights? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict.) This is not the right place to inform stewards. That would be Meta:Stewards' noticeboard. Regards, Vogone talk 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
X mark.svg Not done. It has nothing to do with this particular global group. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]