Steward requests/Global permissions/2013-06

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

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for Sarrus

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

I remove vandalism on several WMF projects. Besides the wikis where I am administrator (dawiki, dawiktionary and dawikibooks) and those where I am a local rollbacker (enwiki, svwiki and simplewiki) I also remove vandalism on several other projects. Among these are dawikisource, dawikiquote, nowikibooks, nowiktionary, nowikiquotes and svwikiquotes and also some more active projects as nowiki, Meta and Incubator. On irc I am voiced on the CVN channels #cvn-wp-da, #cvn-wp-en, #cvn-wp-simplewikis and #cvn-sw. In all cases a global rollback would be useful.
- Sarrus (ct) 11:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're surely trusted, however, looking into your x-wiki edits, I've seen some content work, but not that many vandalism reverts outside the projects where you have local rights. Per policy, users must be demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities and make heavy use of revert on many wikis. You don't seem to fulfil these requirements at the moment, so I'd recommend you become more active in the SWMT and reopen this request later. You can use User:Snowolf/How to globally TWINKLE. Best of luck. Defender (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see much vandalism reverts outside the wikis where you already have local rights (cf. luxo:Sarrus & tools:~pathoschild/crossactivity/?user=Sarrus (filtered by "last edit ^")) -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with granting the permission even if the user restricts his work to the wikis he is already working on. But at least in the last few days, there wasn't that much activity (= heavy use) either. Vogone talk 14:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • &  Having analyzed your edits of the past two months on the 11 wikis where you were active and did not have rollback or sysop rights, I've been able to locate no more than 15 reverts. That is hardly enough to justify this request. Please, become active in SWMT activities before requesting this right, for I do not believe you currently fulfill the policy condition of "heavy use of revert on many wikis". Snowolf How can I help? 23:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per MarcoAurelio and Defender.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • not yetbillinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Not enough crosswiki work yet. COme back later. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 06:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Snowolf--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Sorry, but not. --Alan (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Needs more cross-wiki experience --Glaisher (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • X mark.svg Not done, no consensus to promote right now. Trijnsteltalk 14:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Simeondahl

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

Greetings. I request to be assigned to global rollback privilege. I do a lot of cross wiki vandalism removal, and it is done with Twinkle at the moment, which is also fine. I would like to have it as it can help some people. It helps me so I do not have to worry about whether Twinkle works perfectly, and that small wikis do not have to spend their time patrolling me. I like to remove vandalism, so this is something that I certainly like to do. When I use Twilkle, so sometimes bother so it does not show me the editing is removed, and then I check the history to be sure. The I avoid with GR. So I hope you will consider it. Thank you. - Simeondahl (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for applying for global rollback (GR). Could you indicate when you have requested GR before, and what has changed since then? Mathonius (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes Sir I can do that. Last time I applied for GR was 30th November 2012. When it was rejected, I was unfortunately a very inappropriate behavior. I would not use this as an excuse, but I had some personal problems. I apologized but then and I have overcome the problems. But it has changed enough that I have become more mature. I can handle some situations that I could not before. I was not the maturation time (if I had to say it). But yes, I have gained a better understanding of Wikimedia, and more mature. I hope this was the answer, otherwise please ask again. --Simeondahl (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found three requests (2012-06, 2012-8, 2012-12) and I fear I still share some of the concerns mentioned there. When looking at your CrossActivity you seem to have been very active, though most of the edits are on your userpages and the activity really only goes back a few days. The last period of activity before was at the time of your previous request. Aditionally, I have the impression you are a bit trigger happy, performing various unnecesary reverts/edits such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. I would expect some more demonstrated experience before you apply again. Savhñ 15:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking more closely at these diffs:
    1. [1] Useless, but nothing wrong with this edit.
      Useless. Savhñ 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2. [2] The template removed was (and still is) tagged for deletion, so he shouldn't have restored it.
      Agreed. Savhñ 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    3. [3] Useless, but nothing wrong with this edit (there were too many newlines anyway - <br clear=all> would have been better).
      Useless. Savhñ 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    4. [4] Nothing wrong with this. It's in userspace.
      Useless. Why test how to edit a page on a random wiki? Most people should already know how to edit. Savhñ 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    5. [5] These reverts seem correct, and he corrected his accidental self-revert. Can you explain why this is a reason to oppose?
      I never said it was a reason to oppose. It is the way he acts, using non-understandable edit summaries like "DONW!" that I don't expect from a Global rollbacker. It does prove trigger-happyness though. Savhñ 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    6. [6] He typed something like "{{delete|nonsense}}" (actually "nonsens"), but this wiki has some special typing thing installed where it comes out in Kannada script. He should have typed it somewhere else, then copied it, or used a tool to add it. However, this edit is not as bad as it seems without inspecting it.
      You can disable the script by ticking the box. However, I doubt that that article should be deleted. Non-native words (ie: words in English) also have a place on wiktionary, and the author seems to be an active local contributor with over 70000 edits on that project. Savhñ 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that there's no need to delete the page. I was just explaining his edit. BTW, it is a native word. I suspect the reason he tagged it for deletion was the fact that it contained "_______________" (no native description). PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    7. [7] What's wrong with this? It would have been better to add it in Wikidata, but there are bots handling that. BTW, this page is not currently in the Wikidata "Hockey" item.
      There is an interwiki conflict here, the Hockey article existing under another name. The removal of the interwiki is in any case correct, since none of the other pages link there. This one is a tough one, I agree, and more users can make this mistake. It should be know, by now, that with wikidata interwiki removals don't mean vandalism, though. Savhñ 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    8. [8] This is a correct deletion tagging. However, someone else fixed it and wrote a real article. - nothing wrong with this tagging though
      Isn't it fairly useless to add your signature to a deletion template, without even adding a reason? Also note that the signature does not appear in the template. Savhñ 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    9. [9] (now deleted) I agree, native speakers should handle this. The revert doesn't seem very justified.
      Agreed, article should have been tagged for deletion, not reverted. Savhñ 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you completely missed the points of my comment. First of all, I did not oppose. Secondly, I used the links to prove a certain pattern, which repeats istself across various wikis, proving the user's cluelessness. It is up to each user to judge what they think about the edits, but I think we can safely agree they were all wrong/unnecesary. I also think that there is something wrong when the user only mentions one of their three past requests when explicitely asked to do so. Savhñ 18:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose You have made few reverts cross-wiki. Furthermore, that this is your fourth request is not very satisfying when I don't see that much has changed since your third.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Although I share others concerns about your inconstant activity, I hope you stay active with the GR tools, and will not leave so soon. I don't want to see a fifth request and I don't see the big difference between TWINKLE and GR (except autopatrolled etc.). Vogone talk 18:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. I share Savh's concerns, especially those concerning the trigger-happiness. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above. --Rschen7754 19:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Weak oppose per Savh. Lukas²³ 16:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per Vogone and AGF. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support, per Vogone. Once got the tool, you might do a good job, in my opinon. So why not? --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 16:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per Frigotoni. LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • &  I don't like the repeated pattern of SWMT work for a bit, request, stop SWMT work, start SWMT work, request, etc.. This is the fourth request, and I am not encouraged that the user seems unwilling to recognize and improve upon this. I see a little bit of work going back a week, and then nothing until we go back to early march. While it's obviously okey to not be continuously active, I would like candidates to be active for more than a week prior to request. Examples above by Savh hardly add in a positive light to the mix. While I applaud this user's clear dedication and commitment to cross-wiki vandalfighting, his history on this make should make us want to see some extended work prior to granting this userright, I believe. I do not subscribe to the "try and try again" method, and rather think the bar should be rising to show improvement with each request. Snowolf How can I help? 00:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot the snakes. Vogone talk 02:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that mean? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vogone is referring to this wonderful gem of "using google translate while claiming en-2" that Simeondahl made at his last request: [10]. Snowolf How can I help? 03:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Neutral Neutral Still a little doubt. Happy to give him the chance. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Savh and Mh7kJ. Trijnsteltalk 18:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Done - I can see that I do not get GR for a while, so I prefer it be returned. I'm glad the comment and criticism I have received, and will try to work getting it fixed. I'll stop making the little unnecessary edits as I often do, and just think me over one last time. I'm going to continue my work, and hopefully show you that I will be of use (more than I am now) :) Hope you all have a continued good day. - Simeondahl (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global sysop permissions

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Global editinterface for Addbot

The bot which is approved as a global bot as well as being approved locally on all other wikis removes interwiki links that are already on wikidata. Currently protected pages do not get edited by the bot and this is likely to be a large number of pages that remain in my list. Having people have to manually remove these links on all languages seems rather silly if the bot can do it! Thanks, --·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support but please make sure bot will stick to main space ;) not break MediaWiki space Petrb (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Necessary to get things finally done. Please speedy-approve. --Krd 13:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support and please do that on all namespaces where are interwikis to remove, so noone needs to remove interwikis from category or template pages. --Geitost diskusjon 13:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I would prefer to see this tested and supported at local wiki levels prior to implementation, preferably not from behind a bot flag. Can you please approach major local wikis (top 10?), and point them here to express their opinions. Having a bot operating with a bot flag operating on protected pages without local communities having the ability to express their opinions, and to see tested is worrisome to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the existing rights Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/editinterface, if we do need something herewe may be better creating a global bot wikiset with a smaller subset of rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One says stick to main space and the next one says everywhere. I'd suggest to discuss that prior to giving that right. What about user space etc? -Barras talk 14:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I didn’t say "everywhere", but "on all namespaces where are interwikis to remove". On user namespace, there aren’t any interwikis to remove, because the Wikidata policy doesn’t take items for interwikis on user namespace (those ones get deleted there), and also no items for discussion, special or MediaWiki namespaces, so the bot doesn’t have to edit discussion, user or MediaWiki namespaces in any way, cause there are no Wikidata items for that. --Geitost diskusjon 15:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be editing exactly as it is now, which means every namespace that is on wikidata, so main, project, template, category, some files and thats it (I think) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By pure logic the bot shall work on protected pages in all namespaces he works also for unprotected pages. This mentioned discussion is totally unrelated to the flag requested here. --Krd 14:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
updated my vote Petrb (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather like to see an additional global group (e. g. global Wikidata bots) than adding it to the editinterface global group which includes far more user rights than needed. Vogone talk 14:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this could be a better way to deal with the need to edit protected pages. I think the name 'global Wikidata bots' might be a bit specific though. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. I agree with Billinghurst. I think is not necessary the flag editinterface. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zerabat (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2013‎
  • In my opinion, for such additional rights there should be created a new account, because this'll facilitate the control of the edits from a community. It would be more easily to check all protected pages edits (both local and global) in the frequently editing bot contribution. --Emaus (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local edits are local and require local approval. What do you mean with "global" edits? Vogone talk 15:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See below that editinterface has been struck from the proposal already. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about a cross-wiki tools that allow to quickly check the global contribution. In case of divided contribution it will be more easily. --Emaus (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support giving it global editinterface. IMO it's better to give the bot membership in an existing group than to create a global group for one bot. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I already removed interwikis from protected templates on the French Wikipedia two months ago, and pages in other namespaces that can have interwikis are not supposed to be protected forever, so you will probably not have a lot of work on frwiki. FYI, there were a many links to deleted pages, or links using an obsolete prefix for the local template namespace. Orlodrim (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • &  not what this group is for. Global editinterface is for trusted global contributors who necessitate edit access to the Mediawiki: namespace for updates and the like. This bot does not and has nothing whatsoever to do with this permission. Snowolf How can I help? 23:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I add that given we don't even have a true global policy handling global editinterface and that we've had people be annoyed in the past at global editinterface editors making changes using these permissions, the last thing we should ever do is give it to a bot. That's just asking for trouble. Snowolf How can I help? 23:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so there’s also a problem with this existing user group itself. oO --Geitost diskusjon 23:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to give this userright to Addshore to use in the way (s)he thinks fit his/her need, but I have doubts that it is a good idea to add this userright to a user who is by default hidden in RC. -- Lavallen 07:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • X mark.svg Not done as the user has withdrawn this request [11]. Snowolf How can I help? 10:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New global permissions group

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To carry on discussion everything mentioned below please see Requests_for_comment/Global_Wikidata_Bots and Talk:Requests_for_comment/Global_Wikidata_Bots. ·addshore· talk to me! 20:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, from the above I realise that edit interface does indeed have too many permissions attached to it. So I propose a new global permissions group that includes only edit, editinterface, editprotected, autoconfirmed for use by bots in such cases as this. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably editinterface is not needed, as it only affects ns8 which shouldn't be touched by your bot. Vogone talk 14:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck editinterface. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every user can edit pages, that isn’t needed. Every global bot has already autoconfirmed and also suppressredirect, and global bot rights should be needed for this new group (if a bot shall get this additional right), so these rights aren’t needed either. It’s just editprotected missing, nothing else. So, the new group could be named global editprotected – no need to say now, only (global) bots may request such rights, by the way, perhaps someone finds anything else where a user may need just global editprotected, who knows?. --Geitost diskusjon 14:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normal users who need the global editprotected right globally are already requesting the editinterface permission. It is only intended for highly trusted users, who are maintaining ns8 and other related stuff. The problem with the normal global bot group is its restriction to the global bots WikiSet. Vogone talk 14:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict.) Well, okay. If we would implement such a new global group, the result would be to have global approved bots in several different bot groups. (In addshore's case the restricted "global bot" group plus the new group which would not be restricted by a WikiSet.) Wouldn't it be more senseful to create a "global Wikidata bot" group whithout a restriction to WikiSets which would include the global bot + the editprotected user rights? Global approval (like it is already the case for Addbot) would surely be needed before granting the global right then. Vogone talk 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the best idea. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addbot will need the editprotected right only temporary until all IW links are migrated to wikidata. Nobody else will need it. Addbot is tested well, thw operator is trusted. Is there really any need to reinvent some wheel in this case? --Krd 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can always link with [[xx:xxx]] so that a bot needs to merge it to Wikidata. I really do not see this as an temporary process. Vogone talk 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you will rarely add new interwiki links to protected pages. I'd prefer to solve the actual real problem, not any academic ones that may never happen. --Krd 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many users do it still in the old fashion and also pages which are currently unprotected could get protected some day. Furthermore, even admins on small wikis might not be that familiar with Wikidata, so that they prefer the old way. Having 1 or 2 globally approved bots in such a global group won't harm and it would be beneficial for all projects. Vogone talk 15:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right saying that users add interwikis on the pages, and I also do, because it just isn’t possible for everyone to edit and add interwikis on Wikidata directly. You need to have a newer version of JavaScript for that (with older versions, you are getting errors instead, it’s obtrusive JS of newer versions). If that big bug won’t get fixed some day, surely there always will be people who have no other option than adding interwikis on Wikipedia instead of Wikidata, see also discussion on en: with the same problem for notifications. So, it’s also a problem with accessibility. But is there a need for such a work-around of a new user group instead of fixing those kinds of bugs, so that noone has to be forced anymore to add interwikis on WP instead of Wikidata? --Geitost diskusjon 15:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a new global group takes 5 minutes … Vogone talk 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware it is possible for anyone and everyone to add links to wikidata instead of in wikitext, the ability to add interwiki links to text is not a bug and therefor this is not a work around.? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s not possible without JavaScript to add, change or remove interwikis on Wikidata, you need a not too old JS for that. And it’s even not possible to edit the items directly except of reverting another previous edit. --Geitost diskusjon 16:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you are correct, silly javascript. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the interwiki you want to remove or change, has been added in the first version of an item (or something like this), you don’t have any chance to do so, you always have to ask another person with JS to do it. So, there should be a request page for such things at Wikidata, if this bug won’t get fixed. You have no chance to correct wrong interwikis yourself anymore. You could do this before Wikidata, now you can’t do that anymore. --Geitost diskusjon 16:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this is a major bug. Why has it not been fixed? If you wanted to, you could do it without JS by using the API (Special:ApiSandbox), but this is a horrendous solution. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know this bug is being worked on, also if it is needed why do we not make such a request page on wikidata (I also feel we may be getting a bit off topic now). ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, feel free to open a new section at d:WD:PC :-) Vogone talk 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add this to the global bot group? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editprotected? Because this will not solve the problem as the global bot group is restricted to a WikiSet. Vogone talk 15:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words the global bot group does not give permissions globally, there are several wikis that it misses (the larger ones) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all global bots need or should have that right. Further I am not comfortable granting that right for bots to edit protected pages without the knowledge of the wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment at my request, AddShore has posted to the top 10 WPs (I believe in their 'Bot request' sections) asking them to express an opinion on this request. Thanks for that. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request sections and or the generall place on the wiki for notifying them of such proposals or discussions. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned, global bots aren't accepted on all wikis, mostly the big ones have there own policies. A global group granting editprotected on all wikis would likely violate some of these local policies. It is therefore unacceptable to just introduce such a group without consens from the global bot participators and each excluded wiki on its own. Therefore, before creating this group it is important to gather permission for this group on the wiki itself, not on meta. Without this, this group must be restricted to the same wiki set as the global bot group! --Steef 389 16:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why the local communities were notified. The task itself is already approved on all wikis, just the editprotected part is new. Vogone talk 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict.) Global bots indeed are not accepted on all wikis, Addbot has approval on all wikis with a combination of local and global flags (see here. Trying to seek individual approval from all 250ish wikis is a major task. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misunderstand me. For wikis that accept the global bot policy, approval here on meta should be enough. But you will need individual approval from the other wikis. --Steef 389 17:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Maybe we should handle it this way: create a new global group (even though I think creating a new global group for one account is overdone, but meh) restricted to a wikiset initially copied from the global bots wikiset, and then other wikis can be opted-in depending on their local discussions. --MF-W 20:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good solution! And we could send out a 'global delivery message' to the other wikis :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But I suppose other global bot operators who are updating pages for Wikidata globally will be interested in joining this newly created global group as well. Vogone talk 20:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very true ·addshore· talk to me! 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a bad solution. Do I understand this right that this global group shall only and forever contain only one bot account and no other? Do I understand this right that, if another bot account shall get editprotected rights, this would mean to create another global group with just this one bot account and so on, for each bot account with editprotected rights a global group of its own? Because every bot account will need to ask the local communities to opt-in, and so for every bot account there surely will be a different wikiset for the individual global group? Then I prefer the solution that Addbot gets global editinterface rights. And if another bot account is as much trusted and also needs the editprotected right, then there can be another request for editinterface rights. That’s much better than x global bot groups for each bot account (potentially). --Geitost diskusjon 21:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you understood it a bit wrongly. There would be a general discussion on the particular wikis whether they allow Wikidata bots to act on their wiki with editprotected or not. The bot approval itself would be still required before the bot gets assigned to the global group, of course.Vogone talk 21:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmh, but there is a wikiset for global bots already which can be taken. Also Addbot may already edit on other wikis as just the wikis of the global bots. Would that mean that the bot then may edit less wikis than now, if there shall be another discussion for all Wikidata bots altogether? And in addition, then the group could only contain interwiki bots for Wikidata and no other bots or accounts anymore. --Geitost diskusjon 21:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. The global group would be for Wikidata bots only. @"Would that mean that the bot then may edit less wikis than now": No, Addbot holds still local flags on all the non-global bot wikis. So we would start with the same limited WikiSet which is currently used for global groups, but we would extend it everytime a local community decides to allow Wikidata bots to use the editprotected right on their wiki. Vogone talk 21:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Depends on how Addshore formulated his notice to the communities :P
If we want to create a new "global bots moving links from protected pages to Wikidata" group, I suppose we 1) spam current global bot policy wikis about the proposal of a new global bot group which can edit protected pages [we cannot impose global bots with editprotected rights on them without asking either], 2) create the group + its wikiset leaving out any wikis that decided to not want it, 3) add any wikis that decide to want it. The number of bots getting that right should nevertheless be kept low, as it's senseless to have 23345345452 bots doing this (as it was with interwiki links before Wikidata). A question to decide would be whether the group should include the bot rights, or whether the bots in the new group should be dependent on bot flags via global bot status + local bot status. --MF-W 21:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict.)The two cases you have described are practically the same? Either have a group simply allowing the editing of protected pages, but also require the bot to have the global bot flag. Or have the group also contain the bot right? I may be getting tired and may have missed something above.. ·addshore· talk to me! 21:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After re reading everything above I personally have no preference and feel it should be left up to the stewards and how they want to organise the permissions for the current and future use :) ·addshore· talk to me! 22:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of this section, I didn’t know at all that global bots are not allowed to edit any wiki they want. I thought, local bot rights are given first, and later, they perhaps also request global rights, if they need them – and then may edit any wiki. So, that’s not true, there is a wikiset of wikis which global bots may edit.
At the beginning, I also thought, it would be an easy thing to do just to set up a global group for whoever requests global editprotected rights. That’s also not true. It’s getting more complicated each time that anyone thinks about this, and it seems, that it cannot be done without discussing this on each wiki on its own, cause no wiki has accepted a global bot policy with the global user right editprotected.

All these needed local discussions just because of one bot requesting global editinterface rights above. Now I’m understanding what Krd meant on my German talk page many hours ago. ;-) It would be such an easy thing to do without local discussions anywhere to just give this bot this existing user right which can be requested here and which many users have already requested and got without any local discussion. I don’t think that there is a problem with giving the bots some more rights that it doesn’t need. And I still don’t think that there are many protected pages with interwikis and, if the bot would migrate all interwikis from protected pages first, it surely could get through that very fastly.

This whole discussion is a bit confusing to me. Here we have a concrete request for a temporarily needed global right – perhaps one month would also be enough for doing this bot work and perhaps we could also say that the bot only shall migrate interwikis from protected pages, as long as it has the global interface right, and if it is done with that, a steward could remove the right and then the non-protected pages are to be migrated again. So, just because of this temporarily needed right, we have to create a new and very complicated user group? Perhaps I’m missing the point, but why so complicated for just a temporarily needed global user right in an existing user group? It could also be split up into two bot accounts, if needed, one for non-protected pages, as it is now, and one only for the protected pages.

In the future, there surely won’t be a need for more than one bot to migrate interwikis from protected pages anymore. And by now, the bot could do this very fastly, and then, no other bot is needed for that either. So, there might be no need for this user group which causes so many problems and many local discussions on every wiki. We also don’t ask every community, if any user may edit their interface, if (s)he requests editinterface rights here on Meta. And, if I understand this rightly, there also is no wikiset (as for the global bots) for editinterface, so that these global interface editors may edit any wiki after the request and discussion here, right? That could be the same for the bot then, too. No need for any local discussion, just discussion here. --Geitost diskusjon 23:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addbot is still a bot. Granting it global editinterface won't solve the problem at all, as the communities still need to be notified. Vogone talk 23:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • &  I do not think that this can or should be done without consulting local communities. They have the right to choose whether they want or don't want bots editing protected pages. While they did sign up for the bot policy, they didn't sign up for this, and I do not thing it is appropriate for the meta community to decide to unilaterally change this. If we feel that some bots should have extended access globally, a global consultation is obviously required, and wikis should be allowed to opt out. We have no right to impose this on local wikis who didn't sign up for it. Snowolf How can I help? 23:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the bot, but this is too much. Can you please provide us a breakdown of the number of protected pages you would need to edit for the top 10 wiki's? Just publishing this list will make it possible for local sysops to fix it. Multichill (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*points to the top* this is withdrawn. ·addshore· talk to me! 20:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Oppose Surely not without explicit consent of each local community. --Wahrerwattwurm (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion before commenting, as this proposal is already withdrawn. Furthermore, we are currently busy with developing a new proposal at Requests for comment/Global Wikidata Bots. Regards, Vogone talk 14:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The request for global editinterface rights above has been withdrawn, but this newer proposal isn’t marked as withdrawn. Furthermore, it’s a proposal not for one bot, as I understood it, but for a new user group (hopefully not for just one bot), so how can one person withdraw this second proposal here? Can another user with a Wikidata bot then open this discussion again or how is this supposed to be? --Geitost diskusjon 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the user himself says 2 lines above "this is withdrawn" you can be sure that it is indeed withdrawn. Furthermore, there is a new proposal as you already noticed. There is no need for further discussion here, but rather on Requests for comment/Global Wikidata Bots. Kind regards, Vogone talk 06:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Global editinterface for Addshore

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

Would be great to have this when updating protected huggle config files across wikis for version updates and fixes (which i am currently in the process of doing right now), thanks --·addshore· talk to me! 13:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support trusted user who knows the stuff Petrb (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Trusted and competent. Courcelles 18:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What timeframe would you need this for? Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently for every new release of huggle to access the protected configs on several wikis. My 'need' for this would end when huggle2 either totally dies :/ or such a time that we manage to release huggle3 (which should not have this silly 'feature' where every local config has to be updated). ·addshore· talk to me! 18:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, the number of wikis which support huggle is limited. Only a few bigger wikis with local sysops seem to have a local configuration file. What exactly has to be updated? If it's only 1 edit/wiki I'm not sure whether this global user rights is really needed. But maybe I'm wrong and more regular editing is needed. I'm not that familiar with huggle configs ;-) Vogone talk 20:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of wikis is indeed limited to the number of wikis that have asked for huggle to be enabled (currently somewhere in between 15 and 20 I think). Every wiki that huggle is enabled on has a local config file. Various settings could need to be updated at any time, the main is the version with every release. ·addshore· talk to me! 20:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Sure. Legoktm (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Indeed, if it's useful to you. — ΛΧΣ21 03:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Rschen7754 03:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support MBisanz talk 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is actually huggle and how is this currently handled? --MF-W 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huggle is an antivandalism program that can be set up on the wikis. The program can only be accessed by users with the rollback permission, and it checks the recent changes API on a wiki, and filters edits to find and detect possible cases of vandalism. — ΛΧΣ21 14:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the only project where rollback is needed to use Huggle is en-wiki. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As fas as I know, you need it for and, at least. — ΛΧΣ21 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In es-wiki, you just have to be autoconfirmed and have made at least 500 edits. LlamaAl (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -FASTILY 07:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Glaisher (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --cyrfaw (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes check.svg Done for one year until 10 June 2014. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, this is a really early closure for a request on which the candidate has not responded to all questions yet and which seems to be out of scope ("Interface editors should avoid making routine changes to the interface on larger wikis without prior agreement. Projects with established communities and processes for maintaining scripts should be avoided."). Vogone talk 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Vogone, and am similarly concerned with the scope of this request and the lack of a clear timeframe for the use of these rights. Editinterface is a global group, and the user has specified that it will be used primarily on large wikis - I think it deserves some more scrutiny than five days of rational-less support. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To make a few things more clear. The projects that this would currently be used on are all wikipedia projects (en,simple,bg,ca,de,es,fr,hi,ja,nl,no,or,pt,ru,sv,zh,km,vi (as listed here) if huggle is enabled on any further wikis use would also be needed on those). The time frame is until such a time that huggle3 is released and we no longer have these silly individual config pages on individual wikis that need updating per release. huggle3 is being developed and could be released in a few months or maybe in a year, there is no set time schedule. ·addshore· talk to me! 15:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it looks to me that the scope of this request would then be editing the Wikipedia:Huggle/Config page across the wikis in question. That page across all of the wikis I've checked isn't fully protected, meaning that you don't need rights such as protect, editinterface, etc to be able to change them. It seems to me that a better solution would be to request that the full protection be removed from any pages it is on, and downgraded to autoconfirmed, since the majority of projects have it set at that level. Are there any other fully protected or interface pages that you need to edit? Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, though, on large wikis, the page must remain permanently protected because it would be an easy target for vandals otherwise, as it controls settings for an important counter-vandalism tool for such wikis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If I see it correctly, they are even unprotected (or just half-protected) on big wikis like enwiki and dewiki. Vogone talk 01:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a choice made by the local community. ·addshore· talk to me! 16:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajraddatz: As said further up the page the only pages I need to edit are Project:Huggle/Config. The full protection on the config page is a decision those communities have made, I see no reason I should request unprotection, I do not know the circumstances of any of the protections on any of the wikis, I am simply trying to save time. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Note, set Time2wait.svg On hold. Trijnsteltalk 16:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, right is only needed for three wikis: meta, viwiki and eswiki. Zhwiki is semi-protected. I don't think this global right is necessary for the limited scope, and I am unimpressed by both the answers and the delay in getting proper stats. I am willing to unprotect (temporarily?) the page on and meta, if necessary. Savhñ 17:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I originally filed this request was to save myself and others time when trying to update huggle pages, being able to update them all myself of course seems like the logical and easy solution. The edits described are in no way controversial. As for Savh saying my answers are unimpressive the questions have all be answered as quickly as I could, I am sorry but I can't be on metawiki 24/7. And the delay in proper stats? which I have not been asked for until just now on irc, I am sorry but it does take some time to check the protection status of a page crosswiki in multiple languages. None of the pages that are protected should be unprotected unless the local community decides to do so, it is their project after all. ·addshore· talk to me! 17:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose giving someone, regardless of level of trust, global rights to edit three pages. This isn't what the group was meant to do, and there are alternatives available - such as asking those projects to downgrade the protection. Additionally, as a kind of a side note, Addshore references how it is the local communities' decision to fully protect the pages, making them sysop-only. This right would allow him to bypass that decision without any input from said communities. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for similar reasons like Savh and Ajraddatz. Especially since there is no globally approved policy for this group and the local communities would have to agree. Any usage of this right on the mentioned wikis would be out of the right's scope. Vogone talk 18:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the right as the user has withdrawn his request, so I'll mark this as X mark.svg Not done. Trijnsteltalk 20:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there's a wiki-set I mantain that lists all wikis that use huggle. It is not attached to any group and just serves as a list of wikis; but it can be considered if one or two huggle devs could be granted rights on the wikis that use huggle, via that wikiset, strictly for huggle maintenance. Just a though. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global editinterface for Hoo man

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

As it's almost a year now since I had my global editinterface rights confirmed (discussion) they are going to expire in a few days. In the last 12 months I used the permissions to fix individual scripts and gadgets on smaller wikis or, per request, on bigger ones. As there still is a lot of work to do (and likely always will, as software changes), I would like to extend my rights for one more year. Thanks, Hoo man (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes check.svg Done prolonging the permission for one more year to expire on 2014-06-22.--Jusjih (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for Moutonjr

Hello Billinghurst, My IP address had just been bought 3 months ago, I own it and it points to the OVH datacenter (France). However, It appears that it is already blocked because of the previous owner. As you can see in my Wikipedia history, I am a regular contributor and I can assure you that no spam will occur from this IP. Could you unblock this IP please ? It is necessary for me, who is tunneled through my server with a SOCKS. My IP address : Please feel free to feed my Talk page if you have any queries. thank you, --Moutonjr (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done. Instead I have converted this block to anonymous only, and hopefully that should be sufficient to allow you to edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Creasy

Hi Stewards,

(I'm sysop on wp:fr)

It appears that i cannot use my IP address "" (part of Cross-wiki spam: spambot: problematic IP range.) for edition on several wikis, including Commons. I use this IP address as a squid server, through a SSH tunnel to avoid different restrictions from my work places or public access points. It also increase the security of my personnal informations in several cases of use.

Like i'm the owner and only maintener of the server, there is no risk of spam or abuse from this IP address.

Kindly regards, --Creasy (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done. Again here I have modified the block to anonymous only, so you should be able to edit when logged in. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi billingburst,
It seems that the block is also for connected users (example) after a modification from Vituzzu.
So, I cannot contribute. Like it's not the first time it happens, is it possible for you to review your answer for a 'Global IP block exempt' for my account please?
Regards. Creasy (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Vito has blocked the broader /16 range, see Special:GlobalBlockList/ Trijnsteltalk 14:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Ferbr1

Español/Spanish: Hola, solicito la excepción de bloqueo a Ip, a pesar de ya tenerla, porque no puedo editar en Commons (estoy usando la IP Gracias, --Ferbr1 (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done and I globally blocked the specific range ( for 1 year. Trijnsteltalk 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't use this range usually. I use computers in publics places, and maybe I use this range or any other. I need a global and unrestricted Ip block exemption. Thanks! Ferbr1 (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Great Brightstar

Because of the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and Great Firewall of China, I can't access to Wikimedia Projects some page directly, so I have to use proxy visit wikipedia sometimes. thanks --Great Brightstar (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
非常感謝!--Great Brightstar (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Byfserag

Because of the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and Great Firewall of China, I can't access to Wikimedia Projects some page directly, so I have to use proxy visit wikipedia sometimes. thanks, --Byfserag (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't edit page with proxy in meta-wiki,but I can edit in wikiversity.--Byfserag (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Local IP block and global IP block are repeat.Please unblock.[12]--Byfserag (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed both to anon-only. Trijnsteltalk 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Byfserag (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]