Steward requests/Global permissions/2015-09

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

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for Reguyla

Not ending before 7 September 2015 11:17 UTC

I realize I am not the most popular guy these days but I do a fair amount of cross wiki reversion of vandalism and having access to this tool would make it substantially easier and would reduce the chance of error. Oftentimes vandals on some of the smaller wiki's especially make several edits consecutively and the only way I can fix it currently is by going to an old version of the article before they edited, cutting the contents an pasting that to the current page. This is both inefficient and increases the chance for error. Also, since rollback is a relatively benign tool and I previously had access to this for years on ENWP and currently have it on commons without incident, the cause for concern about abuse is minimal. Of course I know this won't work or change anything on the English Wikipedia. Reguyla (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO, you need more xwiki experience. I think it's best to hold off for now. eurodyne (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I'll leave it open a little longer though to see what other comments come in. Reguyla (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Oppose I'm seeing almost nothing in terms of recent crosswiki experience here. As this tool is only intended for users who demonstrate a need for it, I'm going to have to go with no on this. --Az1568 (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Oppose per Az1568 and Eurodyne. I am also concerned with the user's behaviour. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I'm not opposing or supporting this request. The input I've added was simply a comment, not an actual vote. eurodyne (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Holders of global rights are generally expected to have a clean record and be in good standing globally. Also per Az1568 you need to be much more active.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I just wanted to offer an additional comment. I have no problem with the comments that I need to be more active and that's true, this was just to allow me to more effectively and efficiently do that. Cutting and pasting old versions of the article vice using the rollback feature introduces a much larger possibility of error. But its understandable. Reguyla (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle rollback would be a lot more efficient that cutting and pasting. Snowolf How can I help? 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that too. See User:Snowolf/How to globally Twinkle for documentation. (I'm not sure if this works nowadays though. I heard someone recently saying that it was broken). --Glaisher (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had wondered if that was possible. I did enable it on several wiki's but not too many using the manual method. I'll take a look at that. Reguyla (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you are rather only active on English speaking wikis. Holder of Global rights such as Global Rollback are expected to have experience reverting on wikis in many language, and know the differences acceptable edit in local language and unacceptable one, at first at cvn-sw you may be confused seeing how all SWMT members do this with low rate of error and high accuracy despite themselves don't speak the language, but over time all those newbie SWMT member will adapt and become more proficient in it, this is what we want, the experience, despite not speaking local language SWMT members are expected to be able to differ between vandal-like edit and the acceptable edit.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right I do usually focus on the English speaking ones since I am most proficient in English. By the time I compare the English to X language interpretation you and Mataii have already done it.:-). Reguyla (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't actually need to cut and paste to revert manually. You can go to the clean revision from the history, click on edit tab for that revision and simply saving the page from there would revert it to that revision. --Glaisher (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • &  I do not think that the policy requirement of "users must be demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities [...] and make heavy use of revert on many wikis" is satisfied in this case (both the heavy use - only a few reverts in the past month - and the many wikis - only one wiki that I could see). Only 6 wikis were edited in the past month, and I only saw countervandalism reverts in one of them and even there only a few. Snowolf How can I help? 15:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above. --Uğurkenttalk 15:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You can close this as withdrawn if you want. I'll enable the Global Twinkle function and that seems like it will eliminate the need for this access anyway. Reguyla (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn. --Stryn (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global sysop permissions

Global sysop for Infinite0694

Hi, all. I'd like to apply for global sysop access to delete test/vandalism/nonsense/spam pages and to block vandals(such as ISECHIKA) on GS projects, and I think that I can contribute to small wiki projects with this tool more than ever. Thanks,--Infinite0694 (Talk) 11:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg За 幸運)))--6AND5 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral You are indeed active, but this was still too fast from previous Global Rollback Request, so I can't truly decide if this was good or bad.--AldNonymousBicara? 12:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I don't think that you are ready. Isechika is just a PITA and not worth that level of bother. The public running around for this vandal is exactly the disharmony that this person wants — the annoyance game; or hide and seek — and you give it to him. Don't play with trolls, and until I see the level of maturity to understand and for you to not be the pawn, I will oppose.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral You are an active editor, but I think this is too soon. Sorry. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Really good work so far, but maybe a little too soon? eurodyne (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral per Aldnonymous, it's too early...--Lanwi1(Talk) 15:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Weak oppose Sorry, but it's just too soon. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn I think this nom is too soon for me. Thanks,--Infinite0694 (Talk) 15:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global IP block exemption

Requests for global rename permissions

Requests for other global permissions

Renew global editinterface for Kaldari

I've had global editinterface for many years and need to have it renewed. Specifically, I've been fixing broken gadgets on the French Wikipedia and the English Wikiquote over the past couple weeks, which I would like to continue with. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I will not have any internet access whatsoever from August 30 until September 7 and thus will not be able to reply to questions here during that time. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done for 1 year till 5 September 2016. Ruslik (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS-member for Storkk

Thank you! Rjd0060 (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS-member for Uğurkent

Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

API high limit requestor for Mjbmrbot

To do null edits across the projects, thanks, --Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 07:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite0694 They blocked inactive interwiki bots. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 07:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Can you elaborate why null edits are needed? Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steinsplitter Null edits, always required to update page links and categories, see: T86504 and T109404. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 18:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose This request is a total impertinence (an explanation for what the right is needed was only given after someone asked; and it's still not clear why high API limits are needed for some boring null edits) & the bot owner is not trustworthy at all (see e.g. block on fawiki). --MF-W 18:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MF-W My block in fawiki is not about trustworthy, it was for a personal attack, definitely you are confusing things together because, you called me a troll on langcom mailing list and avoided to import pages for azbwiki for your racist material, you avoided to act as admin in incubator but acted as a boss and I'm not your slave, to always humiliate me everywhere, you don't have any code talent and know nothing about mediawiki. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 19:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused by your personal attacks on MF-W here, Mjbmr. It seems quite reasonable that you would have a differing view on the fawiki block and whather it indicates lack of trust, however there is most definitively no need for you to make personal attacks here. It is not the wikimedia way of doing things. We discuss and try to argue on the merit of the matter proposed, and refrain from making petty personal attacks.
On the specifics, I think it is not unreasonable for MF-W to be disappointed with the fact that you did not provide sufficient explanation for a right request, as it is customary to try and attempt to describe the reasons behind a right request in quite some detail, so that users reviewing the matter would have enough to form an informed opinion on the request.
Also, it is also understandable, as I said earlier in this reply, that you do not think a block on a project affects your trustworthiness, however others might hold differing views. Blocks of users are serious matters, and being blocked for "personal attacks" - as you yourself described the block as, reflects quite badly on the user blocked. This is especially when your response to some of the criticism here has been to make seriously inflammatory personal attacks without any relevance to the matter discussed. Please, reconsider this approach, it really helps the projects when we try to collaborate with each other :) Snowolf How can I help? 22:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you need to bypass normal limits for this? --Glaisher (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glaisher This right provides higher limits on each query (returns 500 pages for slow queries and 5000 fast queries while returns only 50 pages for a normal user) which makes a bot run really fast. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 12:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glaisher This request is already declined, don't question me something already you know. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 12:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it does that many writes in a small time, I'll have to oppose this as doing that many writes has the potential to adversely affect site performance. But that being said, I don't think there's an issue if this is done on a reasonable rate. This type of updates are not high priority anyway. --Glaisher (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICS, this hasn't been closed yet and I wasn't questioning about something I already did know. --Glaisher (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to oppose this request, reluctantly. It is unclear to me whether this right is a good idea for this situation, per Glaisher, and I am very much unimpressed with this user's responses to both Glaisher and MF-W. These projects are built on collegiality and collaboration, and I think bot operators specifically need to be willing to explain and discuss with other users their bots' operations, needs and problems. As such, I think it would be unwise to grant this request at this time, without any prejudice to considering this request if things change. Snowolf How can I help? 22:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am marking this as X mark.svg Not done as there is no consensus--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ability to edit protected redirects for タチコマ robot

I operate my bot on practically every wiki where I deal with double redirects through pywikibot I infrequently encounter protected double redirects per individual wiki but they accumulate over time. Manually dealing with this on so many wikis is a thankless tiring task which I would prefer humans aren't involved. The bot would only edit protected pages where the page itself is a double redirect. I request whatever minimum permission that would achieve this. -- とある白い猫 chi? 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to do this is to add 'editprotected' userright to the "global bot' global group. This will allow editing protected double redirects on all global bot wikis but will require a consensus. For the wikis where global bots are not allowed there is no simple solution. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh indeed. I am only looking at wikis with global bot opt in with my request. My bot already has a global flag. I was told a special usergroup could be formed for allowing only protected redirect pages to be edited. This would be ideal for the purpose I am posting. It could also be beneficial to extend such a restricted extension to the global bot flag. Such a redirect bot flag would be helpful on wikis that opt-out of a global bot flag where the alternative is having an admin bot which isn't something many communities are comfortable in having. -- とある白い猫 chi? 11:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that 'editprotected' userright would apply to any page in any namespace. There is no way to apply it only to redirects. Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, in that case would it be ok for me to request just this userrright? -- とある白い猫 chi? 22:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Editprotected' is a serious userright. Giving it to you will require a broad consensus. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an idea of how many of such cases there are, approximately? I recall a previous request for globaleditinterface with a similar reasoning, then to correct double redirects after double renames. Savhñ 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how many such pages are there? Or in other words, how many hours would you need to complete the job? I'd support granting the right for a day or two until the cases at hand are fixed. A steward can then check the global edits/logs to see nothing weird happened and remove the right again. Chances of abuse seem minimal, in such a way. --Nemo 17:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose I don't think that it is appropriate for stewards to provide a global right that overrides local administrators, especially one that resides with a bot, for a limited needs case. The protection will have been placed purposefully, and it is not up to a person from outside that wiki to overwrite and override that purposeful decision. In the end it is up to local administrators to fix such issues of their making, and bots are just assistants to the process, not decision-makers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for vanishing. I didn't see any responses here for quite some time and found myself to be distracted. :) The kind of activity I am trying to engaged with is covered by the global bot policy. It is that non-controversial. A double redirect is a redirect redirecting to another redirect which ends up at an article at some point. The bot will ignore it otherwise. So self redirects, redirect loops, broken redirects and interwiki redirects will be ignored.
  • There is no decision to be reached though. Local admin decision would not be overridden at all. The bot will only comply with consensus of the local wiki where the consensus is the move of a page. This is the main source of double redirects where redirects to an article suddenly become double redirects when the page they are redirecting to itself turns into a redirect after a page move. A Special:Doubleredirects report is generated infrequently (generally weekly). Redirects are typically protected against vandalism or other bad behavior and more often than not there is no reason to unprotected them since redirects aren't meant to change unless the page itself is renamed/moved (the page itself could be protected from pagemoves by non-admins for example to prevent abuse). So the protection is probably forgotten or left there over persistence of some troll or vandal.
  • This Special:Doubleredirects report has a finite length so if a wiki has over a certain number of redirects it will not generate any more of them. I think the limit is something like 5,000 and I do not imagine any wikis are remotely close to that but arguably it would reach it eventually if we assume every wiki will be as big as English Wikipedia. The problem here is with a performance impact. Since I am running the bot on practically every wiki the bot will check to see if the reported double redirect is fixable. This takes a few seconds but when you have ~200-~300 wikis and have just 10 from each you get fairly large number of pages to review with each run of the bot. It is nothing losing sleep over but it would be nice not to have.
  • Statistically, you typically see one or two of these popping up per medium sized wiki a month on average. This sort of a thing accumulates over the years. It is too much work to go through each wiki to verify if they handled all their protected double redirects. In the past often I found myself explaining why redirects need to be fixed since I make a point to solve this problem with my bot so that the local community isn't inconvenienced.
  • There is no reason to spend developer time or community/human time to fix this problem that already has a solution. The double redirect script never makes mistakes since it merely follows a redirect chain to its destination and posts that title as the new redirect. So, I'd rather have everyone work on everything else imaginable instead of hand fixing double redirects. :) I would be OK if this access is granted for 2-3 days a year (or every 6 months) since the problem does not need to be solved that often. Work load would be much less in future cases since the problem would not be allowed to accumulate.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We know about redirects, and double redirects, that is not the issue. You have asked for the ability to edit protected pages, and that is what we are disputing needs to be provided. If it is protected, you can skip it and move on. Or you add a note to the talk page and move on. Leave the protected pages to the communities, they protect them, they manage them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do that already, I move on. That is of benefit to nobody. What is the benefit of keeping double redirects? Who in their right mind would look at the talk page of redirects? The idea for having bots is to automate mundane tasks, not generate MORE backlogs particularly when the double redirect backlog is there. Evidently communities tend to pay little attention to it. Why should they? Bots fix them without mistake. I do not quite understand the concern here. No one in their right mind would complain about a bot fixing a double redirect. -- とある白い猫 chi? 19:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support 2602:306:3357:BA0:78B4:9FBB:D4F6:42F2 03:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose. Per billinghurst I see no justification for overriding local administrators - there may be a good reason a redirect is protected, it is not for us to judge. Secondly, とある白い猫 seems to not understand the objections being raised and is responding to them by stating people who object are not "in their right mind." This strikes me as a poor attitude for someone running a global bot let alone one that is overriding local consensus. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose Automated bot should not overrule sysop's judgement. — regards, Revi 08:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as X mark.svg Not done - there seems to be no consensus to grant this right at this point of time. My suggestion is that local admins are notified of this, as it is likely unintended that a redirect remains protected. Thank you for your assistance with your bot, though. Savhñ 09:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Jonathan Groß

No longer active on OTRS. Thx. --Krd 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. --Stryn (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

add global OTRS member for SpacemanSpiff

New OTRS member. --Krd 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

add global OTRS member for Groucho NL

New OTRS member. --Krd 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]