Steward requests/Global permissions/2018-03

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 March 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests for global rollback permissions[edit]

Requests for global sysop permissions[edit]

Requests for global IP block exemption[edit]

Global IP block exempt for Micael D.[edit]

Micael D. (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Micael D., Why do you use VPN for editing? — regards, Revi 11:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
-revi Personal reasons. Micael D. (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The user has emailed me about this. He is using a VPN service for privacy and security reasons, and some IP addresses are eventually under global blocks. RadiX 14:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for yangke19941112[edit]

Hi, I cannot join Counter-Vandalism Unit but due to global block. Can I take temporary global IP block exempt? --Yangke19941112 (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done you don't seem to be caught by any global block. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Psm[edit]

Looks like some NordVPN IP blocks are blocked globally. I use NordVPN for "simple & legitimate" purposes, i.e. just to provide basic privacy when connecting on the internet while travelling or across dubious public wifi networks. However I'm not travelling online anonymously, I'm properly logged in on my global wikipedia account. Looks like only recourse is to either not contribute, or request a global permission to be exempt from blocks. The latter would obviously apply only if I'm logged in, thus, would solve the issue. Thx. --Psm (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Requests for global rename permissions[edit]

Global rename for TonyBallioni[edit]

Not ending before 11 March 2018 16:25 UTC

I've been doing more work on request for unblock on the English Wikipedia, and one of the most frequent unblock requests that show up are based on username blocks. Currently, I skip them completely because I don't have the ability to rename, and having this right would help cut down on the backlog there. I'm not the most active on cross-wiki things, but I've been getting more involved in meta, and have some activity on Commons helping with copyright when there are cross-wiki copyright issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Support Trusted User on English Wikipedia. No Concerns. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 16:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support trusted user with a valid need for the tool - TNT 22:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Of course. hiàn 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Trusts on you. SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment, unblock requests should NOT (and not a free pass) enable additional tools, especially the global rename tools. Other admins (especially those based on wikis not enwiki) people have been denied due to "lack of experience". Tony needs to demonstrate experience with the rename process BEFORE receiving the rename tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per TNT. Trusted user. Valid use of the renaming tool. --Majora (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tony has experience with the unblocking process on enwiki, which is a valid use for these permissions. As with all candidates who don't have much cross-wiki experience, I recommend that you start off just handling requests on enwiki, and then branch out as you gain more experience. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Rschen7754 23:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support While I understand's concerns (And in fact I do agree that simply answering username unblock requests is and should not be a free pass to getting global rename), I am far more concerned with the trustworthiness of the candidate when determining whether or not to grant global rename, since this is a position that requires a serious level of trust not to break the servers. TonyBallioni has OTRS and sysop access on the English Wikipedia (adminship is not easy to get there, trust me), which already wins more than half the battle for me. The other part that pulls me to support are my interactions with him, particularly off-wiki interactions. I trust TonyBallioni. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Eurodyne (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support trustworthy user. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAmmarpad (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. Trusted. --Stïnger (会話) 00:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC).
  • Question Question: @TonyBallioni: Can you provide some examples where you skipped an unblock request because of a renaming issue or where you had to wait for a long period of time? Do you have any examples where you unblocked someone and directed them to w:en:WP:CHUS to make a request to be renamed? I'm not seeing a demonstrated need nor am I fond of the idea of just handing over global renamer rights to any administrator who says "they want to handle username unblock requests" on their wiki. Thanks. Nihlus 09:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    • No, as I don’t keep a record of unblock requests I don’t even look at. If you aren’t familiar with how en:CAT:RFU looks, there is a sortable table with a note on the far side as to if it’s a username block. I see username block, I don’t even look. As to your and the IP’s point about knowledge and experience, I’m relatively familiar with how the process works, but never worked in the clerking area as there typically isn’t a need as there are plenty of volunteers and the culture on tends to discourage self-appointed clerks in areas where there are competent people who have the right: might not be the case at renames, but it’s common enough elsewhere that I wouldn’t do it because I trust the people who work our renaming desk, and think they are smart enough to handle the process on their own and with the existing group of volunteer clerks that my presence as a non-renamer wouldn’t do much at all.

      This is also a relatively common request for en admins who work in the unblock area: I can think of at least three who requested the permission for this reason. It’s useful, and per Ajraddatz’s point, I have no intent of diving in headfirst into handling complicated requests. It’d be a pretty straightforward use for changing users with less than 100 edits from usernames like Poooooop and XYZMARKETING to things that comply with the username policy. I don’t think that should be an automatic grant of the rights, but I think it’s a valid need and I don’t think you’re likely to see me breaking the server by renaming someone with 200,000 edits or of creating copyright issues by handling usurps of accounts with substantial contributions. I know my own limits and the limits of the tool, and would defer anything I wasn’t familiar with to people more experienced than me. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

      • I'm aware of how it works, so much so that I know that blocks will appear there even if the user has been renamed, so you shouldn't really be skipping them for that reason alone. There is a very high chance that you believing username blocks are "one of the most frequent unblock requests that show up" is wrong because it's possible that they have already been taken care of (you admit that you skip them so it's apparent you haven't checked to see if they have been renamed by that point). A lot of the time, more information is needed from the user before they are unblocked, so the unblock request might sit there for a couple days. Additionally, you not having renamer rights is hardly a barrier to these users getting unblocked. I'm sorry, "it's useful" is a weak argument that can really be applied to anything without really meaning anything, and your comments here tell me you want rather than need the rights and that you aren't really familiar with the process. Nihlus 10:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
        • To be perfectly blunt, this reads as you trying to make a point because I denied you a permission on where I felt you didn’t meet the granting criteria and didn’t have a particularly strong need to overcome it, and where you then got very mad over it twice. I’m very familiar with how the process works: I see the requests if I’m the blocking admin or if for some other reason I come across the talk page, which happens somewhat frequently as I work regularly with newly created pages. I’ve had to contact a renamer a few times to deal with obvious good faith users who need a rename, and I see users who need to be renamed after a spam user block. I typically don’t handle these new requests if they are softblocks because I think that is better for someone to do all at one time to make it easier for the editor. My reference to skipping is that for the newer ones it’s clear that a renamer hasn’t touched it yet and for the older ones, it’s normally equally clear that another admin is in the process of setting unblock conditions. I won’t be angry if I don’t get this, as it’s literally just my volunteering to make one aspect of the process work more smoothly. If people feel that’s not a good enough reason, I’m fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose No demonstrated need in addition to uncalled for aspersions above. You have no renaming experience, little UAA experience, almost no RFCN experience and you should not be given the tools simply because you have sysop rights on one project as there is no current way to restrict those rights to a single project. Nihlus 11:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That's fine, you're entitled to your view here, and I won't try to convince you otherwise, but so people don't think I'm casting aspersions without evidence, here is the background I referenced above: denied request, other admins user talk, ~ 2 months later on my user talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I have no axe to grind and would oppose any other administrator doing the same thing that you are doing now, so, yes, you are casting false aspersions, and I will ask that you stop. Nihlus 11:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Tony, no need to accuse Nihlus of anything. Anyone is free to voice their opinions here, and the community (and closing steward) can consider how good the rationale is. Nihlus, if you have a negative history with another editor, best to not draw too much attention at one of their requests for permissions. You're free to whatever opinion you want, but your purpose here could have been accomplished with a two-sentence oppose comment rather than a question and follow-up. Now let's let the rest of the community review this request :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Sure. My name is not dave (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Question: Do you intend (or at least consider a possibility) to use the bit to handle other type of requests such as those on WP:CHUS or on meta or on the queue once you become more familiar and confident with the procedure and the tool? Is there something that you would like to "avoid touching"? --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Kostas20142: I'm always open to helping once I get more comfortable with things, like ajr pointed out. The global renamers guidelines, however, actually foresees global renamers focusing on their home wiki (and explicitly states that), and that is what I will likely do. If there is a need or backlog at CHUS, I'd be more than willing to help out, but it would not be the focus of my work on-wiki, but rather a way I can help out the community when I am able and there is a need. Additionally, using the ability the way that I'll most likely be using it does impact CHUS and the meta feeds, and the queue in that it lightens the load by allowing the direct rename by a local admin who is familiar with the particular situation by the user: decreasing the global workload, and allowing a user to get back to editing quickly. I'd probably stay away from usurps for a while: I'm familiar with the guidelines there and the copyright implications, but I think that's best left to people who are much more familiar with the process than I will be if I eventually get the renamer bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support I trust Tony not to break the server or do something stupid (intentionally or not). Also I find his response to my question satisfying. The fact that his rationale is not per se a reason to get global rename permissions is not sufficient, is not a reason for me to oppose. --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 15:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Alaa :)..! 15:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support -Hasivetalk • 15:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support I've worked with Tony extensively and have absolutely no concerns when it comes to their potential behaviour when undertaking global renamings. They strike me as someone who is adept at following the rules laid out for global renamers, but more importantly, understands the rationale for such rules existing and, for example, will be able to appropriately explain to users why their requests do not meet the rules, or why technical limitations/issues may impact on renaming requests. I'm confident their work will be of the highest order, demonstrating competency and composure. Nick (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support, I support Tony Ballioni's request because he follows rules and is rather cautious. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 18:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support SupportDoRD talk 19:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportTulsi Bhagat (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support No concerns. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Trusted User.--Faisal talk 06:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support because he is a trusted user and has a valid reason for the permission. Green Giant (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Why not? Tony is a trusted member of the English Wikipedia community. I don't see any reason to think they would abuse the tool. Wikicology (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Vermont (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tony has excellent judgement. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support -FASTILY 08:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tony's experience is commensurate to the requested permissions. Being active at the UAA desk, and knowing the number of soft blocked users requesting a name change, I understand Tony's perspective quite well. Lourdes 02:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Trijnsteltalk 14:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Tony has the relevant experience. The sole oppose doesn't sway me. --Cameron11598 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support We get a lot of unblock requests at which involve renaming, and having more trusted admins who can do it will be a help - and TonyBallioni is one of the most capable and trustworthy we have. It will also take pressure off the global rename queues too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Global rename for Avraham[edit]

Not ending before 20 March 2018 15:05 UTC

I am stepping down as a steward and have given back pretty much all advanced permissions I have held. However, I do intend to remain partially active on EnWiki, and as an EnWiki bureaucrat, being able to rename would be useful. Since I will no longer have that ability as a steward, I am requesting global rename rights. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Support obviously! Face-smile.svg - TNT 15:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support sure. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    Regarding the 'need' comments before, I've seen a lot of people go in to and out of retirement over the years. I'm confident that Avraham can properly use this permission, and they say they want to continue to help this way so I'm in support in general; if it gets unused inactivity cleanup can come around eventually. — xaosflux Talk 12:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral, if you would have not been a steward but a global renamer you would have lost the global renamer flag due to inactivity (no renames within a year). But I do hope you will use it if granted. Stryn (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Correct. I have less time, which is why I've stepped down as a steward, Commons admin, Commons OS, Enwiki CU, Enwiki OS, OTRS volunteer, and Meta Admin. I intend to be sufficiently (perhaps minimally, but sufficiently) active as an EnWiki 'crat. So I will make time to perform at least the necessary renames to maintain that. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support obviously. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAjraddatz (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. --Stïnger (会話) 16:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC).
  • Support Support Why not? Wikicology (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support SupportGreen Giant (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support though there should probably be a discussion about stewards who wish to keep some of the global permissions (GR, GS too) after they resign uncontroversially. --Rschen7754 19:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Alaa :)..! 20:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per the comments by various established editors above. Lourdes 03:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support. RadiX 03:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support.--HakanIST (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral Another case of a current lack of need. I'm not opposing since you have used the right before, but I am entirely unimpressed with the reasons you would like to have the rights after not using them for over a year. Nihlus 07:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Trijnsteltalk 14:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Cameron11598 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support In terms of whether or not I trust the user, the fact that this user is a steward gets an automatic thumbs up from me. I concur with Stryn and would like to see this permission being put to actual use if it is granted, and not kept as a "retirement gift" of sorts like I feel rollback is sometimes on the English Wikipedia after an administrator steps down. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Obviously trustworthy - if you didn't screw it up as a steward, you're not going to screw it up now ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Eurodyne (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAlvaroMolina ( - ) 02:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support -FASTILY 01:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support Esteban16 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support: I agree with K6ka, as Stryn has stated at above. SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Rufet Turkmen | talk 05:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Buggia 08:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. General consensus is to grant. — regards, Revi 15:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Requests for other global permissions[edit]

Global "apihighlimit" for JarBot[edit]

for some reason a lot of time i get limit API warning, my bot has bot flag on projects that i work in. is there any chance to get Global "apihighlimit", it well help me a lot, thanks, --جار الله (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This is userright is already included in all local bot groups. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I know but when i use api between projects i get limit API warning. these errors make my work difficult (Too many values supplied for parameter "titles". The limit is 50.) I believe if the bot have bot flag the limit is 500 some time 5000.

When I run the code on my device I do not get this warning only at tools server i get this warning.--جار الله (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are having an unexpected technical error, getting it resolved by reporting a bug and getting it fixed would be preferable to trying to bypass it. One thing I can think of - are you failing to authenticate and then running without being logged in (in which an account-level flag won't help anyway). — xaosflux Talk 01:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Actually the bot is loggen and even with this warning the bot is editing, i create task in for the bug but as you know fixing bug take a lot of time and my bot running 24/7 and i need to pass this bug to continue my work and when the bug is fixed you can removal the permission.--جار الله (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you running pywikibot? There have been several of these fixed recently and appear to be bugs in the client, not the server. — xaosflux Talk 02:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Yes i'm running pywikibot.--جار الله (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
See updated links and ping I added to your phab ticket. — xaosflux Talk 02:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thank you, i replied there and i hope the bug are fixed quickly.--جار الله (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Based on جار الله (talk · contribs) comment on phabricator task --Alaa :)..! 04:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for AntiCompositeNumber[edit]

Thanks, --Krd 05:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--HakanIST (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Максим Підліснюк[edit]

Thanks, --Krd 07:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--HakanIST (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Coren[edit]

Thanks, --Krd 07:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--HakanIST (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Global interface editor for Nirmos[edit]

Back in 2012, URLs in the MediaWiki namespace were globally altered to become protocol-relative. Protocol-relative, in this case, means URLs that start with neither http nor https. sv:Special:Diff/15652298 is an example of such an edit. This was done in preparation for the switch from http to https, which was finalized on June 12, 2015. This probably made sense back in 2012. It allowed for a smooth transition from http to https.

Now, however, protocol-relative URLs are considered an anti-pattern and bad practice with regard to security, performance, and other features.123 Also, with the ongoing deployment of TemplateStyles, it has become clear that TemplateStyles on WMF wikis currently only allows https URLs. In combination with the aforementioned bot run, this makes for a frustrating and confusing experience for an admin trying to move styles from the MediaWiki namespace to the Template namespace, which is the whole point of TemplateStyles.

To save other admins from the frustration and confusion that I've already run in to, I'd like to alter these protocol-relative URLs to explicitly use https, as discussed in phab:T188760. So, the scope of this task is:

  1. All WMF wikis, and
  2. only pages in the MediaWiki namespace, and
  3. only CSS pages, and
  4. only replacements like //upload.wikimedia.org

Nirmos (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose Sorry Nirmos, but you have a bad history of requesting this same access repeatedly for odd edge cases that aren't really demonstrating a pressing need. Prior rejections in April 2016, June 2016, November 2016, and May 2017 don't make me very comfortable with you doing this. — xaosflux Talk 03:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Xaosflux, and also "All WMF wikis" shows little intent to tread carefully on large wikis or any wiki with administrators. --Rschen7754 03:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose The user has not demonstrated sufficient experience or confidence for this permission. What it indicates Xaosflux and Rschen7754 is also worrisome. —AlvaroMolina ( - )
  • Oppose Oppose Per the above and prior requests. Nihlus 02:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Moral support. I don't know how you feel about the oppose comment above but I hope you are fine. I think you need to demonstrate the need for this tool and apply again after more years of experience. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Xaosflux --Cameron11598 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, no consensus. Matiia (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

oathauth-enable for Lars.Dormans[edit]

I would like to be able to enable 2FA for my account, thanks, --Lars

@Lars.Dormans: have you read Help:Two-factor authentication (especially the parts about scratch codes)? - TNT 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@There'sNoTime: Yes i have —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lars.Dormans (talk)
Yes check.svg Done @Lars.Dormans: I've set oathauth-tester on your account. Please keep your scratch codes in a safe place, as you may need them - TNT 22:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for Ganímedes[edit]

Thanks, --Ruthven (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

done. — regards, Revi 09:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for НоуФрост[edit]

Thanks, --Krd 20:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Alaa :)..! 20:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Seb26[edit]

Thanks, --Krd 12:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --rxy (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for Zoranzoki21[edit]

I'd like to contribute to this field as well. Thanks, Zoranzoki21 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done please apply a request on OTRS/Volunteering --Alaa :)..! 20:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)