Steward requests/Global permissions/2019-08

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

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for Tulsi Bhagat

Not ending before 4 August 2019 12:36 UTC
Transparency: Steward requests/Global permissions/2019-03#Global sysop for Tulsi Bhagat

Hello! I am Tulsi Bhagat, cross-wiki abuser? I don't know if this is the right time to ask for it, but I've just put the request. I know is that I am active in countervandalism work. I am an administrator on the MediaWiki, Maithili and Nepali Wikipedia. I'm also an active SWMT member since august 2018. I am bored using that undo function through global twinkle. It's really uncool, sometimes it won't load probably because of poor internet. I've step down, and would like to get GR in order to use SWViewer and the rollback function. Thank you! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 12:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support It looks like there's a big change between Tulsi at the time of locks and Tulsi now. Everyone deserves a second chance, so should you. Apart from that good xwiki work. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Why not? -- Catherine Laurence 13:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --WikiBayer 👤💬 14:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support From my interactions with Tulsi, I can't sense if he didn't tell me he was a crosswiki abuser, I won't know his history (unless I clicked on his SUL). It's enough time since then, and I can see him improved quite a fair bit. I am seeing competent reverts, he's very receptive to sharing of opinions, trusted in his homewikis. I am seeing GR as a relatively risk free bit to give it to them as they are very unlikely to go back to their older ways. Everyone deserve a second chance, why not we give him now? Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support To be completely honest, I thought Tulsi had GR already. Being someone who edits in the same general area as Tulsi, I have had nothing but good experiences with them and I trust them with this right. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. (Edit conflict.) Tulsi has done phenomenal cross-wiki work and it's pretty apparent he's matured since his glocks. Hiàn (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support sure, not a big deal. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support No issues in terms of reverts and cross-wiki experience. It's time to look forward. --94rain Talk 15:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support, good recent record.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I have seen great improvement in him and I echo the voters above that everyone deserves a second chance. I can support confidently and comfortably as I have trust in him. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 17:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Turkmen talk 23:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Vote of confidence because it looks he's learnt from his past mistakes and is now a net positive contributor. I'm glad that you took the oportunity we gave to you to improve. It's something that in the years I've been around hardly ever happens. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Per MA. I did a final check for any suspicious activity, but all I found was an incredible amount of good work reverting vandalism and spam xwiki. Thanks for your help, and I'm glad that you have matured over the years and stuck with us. – Ajraddatz (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support No concerns here.--HakanIST (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per MA and Ajraddatz. Keep up the good work! --BRP ever 03:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Definitely, now they should be able to do their work easily. No harm in giving GR as their crosswiki work has improved so much. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 08:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I never knew that he was a abuser. He certainly didn't look like one. He deserves a second chance. I don't think they will abuse this right. Masum Reza 10:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Their efforts at keeping and in some other rather obscure small wikis free from vandalism is commendable.  — FR (mobileUndo) 16:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SupportAmmarpad (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--UltimoGrimm (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Support Support what else —Eihel (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not use too much SRM. —Eihel (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is because i am quite active on various IRC channels. I used to report it there. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 05:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Per above, trusted in various projects. Past is not a reason to not done now, he deserves another chance. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 12:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support He definitely deserves another chance for his good work, spirit and positive thinking. Kadaa Aayechha Bhai--Biplab Anand (Talk) 17:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose The recent case of socking, which is the "cross-wiki abuse" referred to above, is too recent for me to overlook.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support He is now a positive contributor, he deserves another chance. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Looking at the comments above, very good. I echo other people's views that you deserve another chance. Leaderboard (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Irwin talk2me 16:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SupportAlvaroMolina ( - ) 20:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support widely active, clear use case, can be trusted --DannyS712 (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -J. Ansari Talk 05:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done — consensus to promote. — regards, Revi 08:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of thanks everyone for your trust and support! I assure you, I will keep it up. Face-smile.svg Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 08:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Eihel

Not ending before 7 August 2019 15:04 UTC
1st application: Steward requests/Global permissions/2019-05#Global rollback for Eihel

I will not stop fighting against vandalism, only with this tool it is easier - for the good health of Wikimedia! Visit my history and you will see that I have enough experience for this application. Thank you to those who give me their trust. —Eihel (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: you have only had rollback on one project for a little over a month, where you have less than 200 edits and the other is at Wikidata which isn't a content project and personally a place where I see very little rollback being used, so for the purpose of gauging this, I'm not looking at that. Why do you not have this right on your most active content projects, simple and frwiki? Have you requested this right locally aside from hiwiki and wikidata? Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: To know my main wiki, look at CA's third column: simplewiki is not my favorite wiki. Only frwiki is my main wikis. It's easy to make changes to Wikidata, especially when creating properties (more than 30 editions per property creation). My wikis benefiting from rb: WD, Meta, enWB, hiwiki, ukWV. When I ask for a right, it is to use it. When you write "very little rollback being used", we must not see the same thing. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant overall, by anyone on Wikidata - it's not a content wiki and thus less susceptible to potential abuse or misuse of rollback. The third wiki which you have rb on, I also am not counting considering you've only got 6 edits. Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: It should be checked before making statements, it has consequences. ukwikivoyage is a wiki in which I made patrols as part of SWMT. I did not ask for anything to get this right: as early as my FIRST patrol edition, Dimon2711 gave me this right. It's the same for Reviewer in sqwiki, I did not ask anything and yet Olsi named me reviewer. For hiwiki, I asked for another right and I was also offered rb. I can do nothing. Look at the quantity and quality of patrols in the SWMT, it's the easiest way to gauge my abilities. Nothing prevents someone from being Global Rollbacker if he has rb on other wiki, it's even the opposite. Similarly, the policy does not object to anyone who has no local rights. You can see that I fight vandalism on many wiki, it's the only pre-requisite. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Wikidata is a content wiki, and does have the concept of abuse of rollback. In fact, given the more rapid scale of edits there, the potential for abuse of rollback is higher than any other project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree in respect to content but I take your point about use of rollback, but in either case, I still feel that this request is premature. Praxidicae (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Well, I'm not saying you're wrong about Eihel (I probably will end up weakly opposing this request too).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: They have applied twice for rollback at Simple, but failed, all the links are in the 1st application. I will review further this application from the 1st one though before expressing my opinion. --Cohaf (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose sorry, but you are active on several major projects where this would grant you rollback when you apparently have not been active enough or trusted enough for the local community to grant it to you. I can't support granting global rollback when you do not have it on,, or I'm normally very liberal in supporting GR requests, but activity on major projects without the corresponding rights there is a big red flag. I supported the previous request, but based on the behaviour there combined with my concern after looking closer at the issues raised by Praxidicae, I am changing to oppose this time around. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @TonyBallioni:,
    Yet it is an application that does not include pre-requisites for patrolling SWs. You had given me your trust the first time when I had even fewer rights. Curious. I gave an reply to Prixidicae: there are rights which I benefited without that I did not ask anything. And yet, I perceive in these wikis a lack of volunteers that allowed me, unbeknown to me, to get these rights and I try to return to these wikis to give a hand. As in my first application, I want only the good of Wikimedia. My history alone should allow you to vote in the right direction. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm generally very open to giving out global rollback, and I really dislike what I see as the clique mentality that accompanies much of the SWMT work, so I tend to support easily, but that doesn't mean I can't change my views over time. You'll note that you're doing the same thing I advised you against doing last time. You've been here longer, so now that you've been here longer, I would expect to see access to the local permissions on major wikis and improved understanding of our behavioural norms. Those haven't happened yet, so it concerns me. I'd also suggest that you take my advice from last time and not reply to everyone here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Per Tony but also the lackluster response to my question. Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral I don't see much errors in reverting in small wikis. However, the projects they are mainly active in they have the rollback right or failed to obtain them. I don't see any reasons why local rollback isn't sufficient. Per the 1st time, I am concerned about the way they communicate and this hasn't changed per this discussion. As Global Rollbackers, we are often confronted by local project asking us to explain why we did this or that, thus, communication is key to ensure our good faith activities doesn't hurt the local projects image of SWMT (I know some projects are really unhappy of). In addition, the ukwikivoyage grant of rollback is weak, 1 local undo and granting isn't what I will do as a sysop personally. I don't see a very strong reason to oppose but I don't feel they are suitable yet, hopefully one day they will. --Cohaf (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose OpposeYou have the right "captcha-exempt" and that is the most important thing for the SWMT.

The GR right is very helpful but can cause damage if used incorrectly. Even if I'm sure that you will not abuse the right, I can not agree because you do not have the experience.--WikiBayer 👤💬 18:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Neutral per Cohaf.--Turkmen talk 18:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose While your existing work with rollback is good on the projects you already have it on, I'd prefer getting some more experience with other projects. Being able to identify cross-wiki vandalism correctly is one of the prerequisites of this right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support GR != local rollback, and his edit matrix is reasonable for someone applying for GR. But I think you should be a little less trigger-happy. Otherwise looks fine. Leaderboard (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Per Above. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral. In my opinion, little has changed since the last GR to swing my vote either way. Per my last vote, I still don't feel they're ready (in any sense) for the right. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 21:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral per Cohaf.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Sorry but I echo what Cohaf said about the way of communication. Often doing crosswiki work, one would need to communicate when some local user reach out. I hope they will take this feedback seriously and will learn from this as I also don't see any change since last time. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Maybe need more experience. --Catherine Laurence 08:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Catherine Laurence: On my previous request, your comment was "Trust user" with the vote "Strong support". In any case, I have more experience than before. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. Needs more experience. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Going back 20 or 30 rollbacks earlier (around June 2019), I see evidences of mis-identification of good faith edits as vandalism on Wikidata.  — FR (mobileUndo) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @FR30799386: I'm sorry to contradict TonyBallioni, but we're entering the mystic. Currently, you have 61 editions in Wikidata, FR. At the end of June 2019, you had 33 editions. That same month, you were only on WD on the 3rd and 8th of June. With regret to disappoint you, I did no RB these 2 days. So we did not meet in June on WD. In fact, I'm going back to May 16 in my history, I think you have to talk about another contributor, because I do not see error. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] and [2] where the particular edits I was talking about. However, due to certain recent events, I would like to withdraw from making any comment on this request for permission. Regards.  — FR (mobileUndo) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To remove doubt to the rest of the community, the first link indicates that a movie title will never have that title. For the second link, this is obvious for those who fight against vandalism. "Mariposa" on a page of a personality has a special meaning in Spanish or Portuguese (slang) and it does not mean butterfly. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, no consensus. Please take into account the comments above and feel free to re-apply once you think they have been solved. Matiia (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Jeff G.

Not ending before 8 August 2019 13:54 UTC

Hi. I have been a Wikimedian for 12 years (starting on enwiki), and a SWMT member for 9 years. I am a Bureaucrat and Interface Admin on test2, an Admin on 3 WMF wikis with SUL, plus a Rollbacker on 3 more such wikis and an Admin on Commons BETA. I am also a member of Global IP block exemptions and OTRS members.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a reason to oppose? Vermont (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is not active reverts crosswiki who could I support? active on first five wiki, another three also around 10-15 days ago. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 04:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user is trusted by his work, even if he has not done too much crosswiki work at the moment, can have him the right.-WikiBayer 👤💬 17:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Who cares? if rights goes on safe hands. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 16:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Esteban16 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -FASTILY 06:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -The Living love (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain why you want this global right? I don't see many recent reverts on luxo and you have given no reason, only listing your userrights. Matiia (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matiia: Thanks for asking. Expanding my defense of individual project wikis from vandalism to defense of all WMF wikis from vandalism, there are times when I come across a particularly prolific vandal who has been jumping from project to project, vandalizing multiple pages each with the same nonsense (no matter the professed languages of the projects). Following such a vandal and undoing their work will be far more efficient for me with rollback than with undo. Some of the other rights listed at GR can also come in handy if I don't have them locally. Please let me know if you want more explanation.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G.:That the law should be used predominantly globally.---WikiBayer 👤💬 11:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you know, the other rights in the GR toolkit are generally only used in counter-vandalism situations, i.e. reverting pagemove vandalism. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Rough consensus to promote. Ruslik (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Catherine Laurence

Not ending before 14 August 2019 15:30 UTC

I have been active since joining SWMT in February. Now I have to face many destructive editors every day. However, since there is no rollback permission, I can only use undo to restore the page. This gave me great trouble. So I am applying for a global rollbacker here to facilitate my further xwiki action. Sincerely. Catherine Laurence 15:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • GA candidate.svg Weak support This will be a full support if the candidate have 2 weeks more of xwiki reverts, however, their reverts had been okay, they are trusted in several projects and have local rollback rights for meta, data, as well as commons. Crossactivity is good, although some is due to their file renaming I still find sufficient reverts. I am confident they have a clue and isn't a jerk. --Cohaf (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support not a big deal. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Any help is good help. I've seen his her efforts a bit to make vandals just a history. Good start. Keep it up. Best wishes! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a friendly note, this editor is female. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Vermont. Thanks for the note. I hope Catherine you will forgive my silly mistake. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SupportAmmarpad (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--Turkmen talk 20:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Sufficient experience and trustworthy. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. Don't have any huge concerns at the moment. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 00:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Does a good xwiki work. Esteban16 (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -FASTILY 04:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Definitely, nice work till now, they should be able to do their work easily and for that they should have access to GR tool. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 09:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Sufficient cross-wiki activity and generally good reverts. Will put the tool into good use. --94rain Talk 11:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support__WikiBayer 👤💬 14:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 16:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support hase rollback on 4 sites, active cross-wiki, can be trusted --DannyS712 (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I don't see many rollbacks, but I see some good. Rollbacker in 3 projects, has experience with tool. Vote of confidence. Is a good start, thanks for your services. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 17:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--Hamish 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done --Alaa :)..! 19:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Zetud

Not ending before 13 August 2019 20:54 UTC

Hello. I'm sysop on :fr (elected in 2008), already rollbacker on :en (elected in 2016) and on :es (elected in 2019), and OTRS member. My cross-wiki contributions are mainly to fight cross-wiki vandalism, including the ones on a well-known French vandal. Today, once more, I had to revert one by one his contribs on various wikis. I would save time and I would be more efficient with the global status. See for example my last contribs on :tr, on :nl, or on :it. Thanks. Zetud (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support poster child for people who should be encouraged to apply for this. Thank you for your dedication to building local projects and communities. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Trusted user, valid rationale, and what Tony said. Thank you for your contributions, Vermont (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Sysop on multiple sites, rollbacker on others, clearly can be trusted. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{s}} Fair use case, nothing else more to say but please, we don't need poster boys for GR, this will just encourage people to even more hat collect. Thanks for your xwiki contributions.--Cohaf (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC){{o}}.Neutral Neutral Doesnt have a demonstrated need and activity in wikis without rollback isn't sufficient. Per BRPever. --Cohaf (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC) After considering further after reading Vermont further comments, I think neutral as per my own comments, little demonstrated need, but won't hurt. If passed, please don't apart of obvious LTA label [3][4][5] as vandalism in any other wikis. I am always of the point that yes, DENY is important, but I am not keen to revert changes made by any user if they don't make any difference to the viewer perspective, and not as vandalism of course. The only exception is that they use things like <!--vandalism added--><ref name="vandalism"|vandalism in infobox, those you of course can and should revert. I will add that I am very afraid some new users are just trying out their stint at editing and labelling as vandalism just scare them off and they don't come back anymore. I will also note that on nlwiki, there is local rollback that you can apply. With all these, I think I will stay neutral.--Cohaf (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. I don't see sufficient recent activity.--BRP ever 08:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I do agree my contribs are not all recent. But even if not recent on some wikis, my recurrent cross-wiki activity is to fight a kind of vandalism that is far easier to fight with this global status. See on :fi, on :pt, on :ro , on :sv... Reverting one by one as I did yesterday, it's VERY time-consuming. Zetud (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those reverts aren't very recent. As GR page says "users must be demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities (for example, as active members of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team) and make heavy use of revert on many wikis." As Tulsi says please use Global Twinkle.--BRP ever 11:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're active on w:trwiki (8 August, earlier 24 December 2018), w:itwiki (8 August, earlier 24 February), w:frwiki (sysop), frwikiversity and mediawiki (2 August, earlier 4 May 2018) earlier wikidata (last months only three edits) and w:eswiki (31 July, earlier 19 March). As you mentioned that was on March 2019. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever: I'd urge you to reconsider your oppose. This is the perfect example of when I complain about the culture of the SWMT and how it is a clique that seeks to prevent people from helping Wikimedia projects. Global tools are not a privilege only to be shared among friends, and comments like yours here are harmful to people actually getting involved in helping projects that people read and edit on. We have a user who has a valid need and works across multiple projects. That you don't like the projects he works on or the time frame is not a good reason to try to stop him from helping. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: You misunderstood my comment. I am simply opposing because I see the lack of recent activity on many wikis which I think has always been the requirement of this right. I never said I am opposing because they are not on SWMT or they are not editing small wikis. The word "SWMT" happened to be on the same line which said user must "make heavy use of revert on many wikis" on GR page which probably made you think like that. I see recent activity on very few wikis and don't see a valid need for this global tool at this point. Neither I said I don't like the projects they work on nor am I trying to stop anyone from helping, I am just making comments as I see things.--BRP ever 23:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I misunderstood it. I just think you're wrong. My point was that editors, such as yourself, who are heavily active on SWMT are hostile to anyone who isn't well known in those circles doing anything with global rights. This is done in good faith, but it is still harmful to Wikimedia projects because the hostility makes it so that the only people who can help are those who feel like putting up with being told they aren't wanted, and continue to help anyway. That's a very small subset of the human population who have that dedication. We need to address these issues as they arise: there is a cliquish mentality to handing out global rights, which is not good. This isn't questioning your individual motivation: I know it is pure. It is saying we have a cultural problem here of chasing off people who want to help, and that your comment is a good example of that cultural problem. The only way to fix cultural problems is to point them out when they occur, which is why you had the bad luck to be the victim of my criticism this time :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked their contributions on several wikis they are recently active on, they have reverted in only about 4 wikis in past 4 months and I don't think this activity justifies the need we are talking about. I think we define the "Need" differently. It's just that I believe the action speaks louder than words and I don't see enough action here. I was just trying avoid the hostility that you are talking about here, I am sorry for this comment as I think I just did that with this one. Thank you--BRP ever 02:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have no reason to apologize for good faith disagreement. We each have an obligation to argue our views clearly, and I don’t fault you for it. My point is that anyone who has edited 4 projects in 4 months is active cross-wiki by any reasonable standard. They are a sysop on multiple projects and have trust and clearly are not going to abuse this. Your vote caused a flood of other opposes until it was challenged, which is why I replied here: there is a culture of telling people You are trusted and active but we don’t want you. which in my view is something we need to move away from as quickly as possible. Anyway, I’ve spoken too much here so won’t monopolize the rest of the discussion so this will be my last reply, but did want to explain clearly what my concerns are. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your concerns but what I am trying to say here is they are trusted but not active enough.-BRP ever 04:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose -- currently no crosswiki activity. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 09:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt, you're a trusted user, and you can handle this GR tool; But i don't see heavy use of revert(undo) on many wikis in your global contributions. Really sorry, Oppose for now. For making your job easier, please use Global Twinkle. Let me know, if i can help you in installing. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 11:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Weak support - Any help is good help. GR is not a big deal, but please try to thrive your activity. Good luck! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sort of an expansion on my support above) I will note that a user does not need to be active in SWMT to gain global rollback. It's a right given to trusted editors to assist in managing xwiki vandalism, and this user most definitely meets that requirement. Please see their contributions on nlwiki, itwiki, and svwiki as examples of their cross-wiki antivandalism work. They're asking for this right to more aptly respond to xwiki vandalism, specifically a prolific xwiki vandal whose vandalism would be better managed were Zetud able to rollback them on whatever project they descended on. Considering their position as an administrator on a large wiki and trusted on a few others, I see no issue in granting this right. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Per Vermont.  — FR (mobileUndo) 16:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support - somewhat active across multiple wikis, and can be trusted with this access. We turn GR into too big of a deal, and should open it up to anyone that would benefit IMO. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SupportAmmarpad (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. Pretty reasonable use-case IMO. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 00:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -FASTILY 04:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--WikiBayer 👤💬 14:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 16:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done, the status has been granted. Linedwell [talk] 06:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollback for Martin Urbanec

Not ending before 17 August 2019 16:54 UTC

Hello, I would like to request global rollback permission. I'm (semi)active in cross vandalism area, and I think being a GR will help me with my work. Sometimes, I press undo, and then I notice there's an edit before the edit I undoed, so I have to make another edit, see [6]. I'm currently an admin, bureaucrat and a checkuser on cs.wikipedia, and I also served there as an arbitrator. I also serve as an admin on, where I requested those permissions for anti-vandalism efforts. Thanks for considering my request, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done --Alaa :)..! 18:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global sysop permissions

Global sysop for WikiBayer

Not ending before 16 August 2019 17:56 UTC

I am very active in Small wiki Monitoring Team and in spam fighting. I want with the right especially spam and vandalism in projects without admins such in chrwiktionary or krcwiki or other delete, but also occasionally take over a few maintenance tasks. I have read and understood the guidelines The Global SysOP right would greatly help me and the project in my work at SWMT. --WikiBayer 👤💬 17:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support Sure, why not. Active in crosswiki work as evidenced by the stalktoy report as well as when I am patrolling wikis, I tend to meet them. I also notice their many SRG and SRM reports and they are fairly good and accurate in nature. Sysop on barwiki makes me know they will handle the tools responsibly. Thanks for volunteering. --Cohaf (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --Turkmen talk 18:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support  — FR (mobileUndo) 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Irwin talk2me 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose does not have sysop on a large project, so we don’t know how they’ll use the tools. I’m fairly strongly opposed to granting global sysop to SWMT members who appear disconnected from individual content wikis and who have no earned the trust of a large local community or on multiple projects within one language group. The purpose of global tools is to assist content projects, and part of assisting content projects is knowing how they operate and what the editors in various communities expect. While there are ways to do that beyond getting +sysop on a large project or on a few small to mid-sized projects, I don’t see that here. I’m sorry, but I can’t support this. I’d be happy to support a future bid at some point, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony many GS have SysOP only in a Small Wiki See (Huji, Holder und other GS)--WikiBayer 👤💬 12:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Huji is a CU and Holder is a crat and IAdmin on multiple projects who has over 200,000 edits on one of those projects. Both of which suggest that they understand what the point of Wikimedia Foundations wikis is, which is my concern here. I don't see any indication you have any strong connection to a content project or understand the issues that come with developing a community surrounding an educational mission. I have extremely low standards for global sysop because it honestly can't do much harm, but I do expect the people applying for it to have an understanding what the purpose of cross-wiki anti-vandal work is. I don't think you do, and honestly, your response to me here further indicates that to me. I'm sorry, but I'm staying in oppose for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral In April 2018 he tried to become administrator on de-wikipedia 7 support - 36 oppose (As user:Futurwiki, bevore rename als Wikibayer). One month later there was an de-arbcom election: 13 support - 106 oppose -- 20:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SupportAlvaroMolina ( - ) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. Trusted user with a good crosswiki track record. The fact that they are not a sysop on a major project doesn't concern me a whole lot. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 02:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Catherine Laurence 13:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Doing good work. Hope they will carefully use the tool. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support After much consideration, I have decided to support as WikiBayer has been doing good anti-vandalism work across many wikis. He has been very active in reverting vandalism. Hence, I believe that he will put the tools to good use. Thanks for volunteering! Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose The only wiki where he is sysop, he totals just over 2,000 editions. Becoming GS while he could not be sysop on his local wiki makes me fear a misuse of this right. He can ask for 2FA in the meantime. Then I took a closer look at this user: he asked for the right to revoke on WD, but only used it very occasionally since February 2019. When he asked for this right, he did it as Futurwiki in Oct 2018. The Futurwiki account has become definitively WikiBayer in December 2018. If he becomes GS to end up not using this right, why give it to him! The WikiBayer account has been around since 2015. But it started to get involved globally only 22 months ago. On Barwiki and Meta, he has only been involved for 9 months. So Futurwiki had to be used more often. Why this change? The lack of transparency is not a good sign for me. In any case, he does not have enough maturity to be GS and the number of his modifications that have been removed is largely too high (all wikis combined). If its decisions as GS have to be challenged, it does not bode well and a 9-month experience as a local sysop is not enough.
Moreover, when he was Futurwiki, every request for right on his local wiki was rejected by an overwhelming majority. This is proof that he can not be GS. Finally, the way it is addressed to other contributors is not very friendly, it is not what is expected of a global sysop. —Eihel (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eihel: I have used all the rights that I have requested so far and never misused a right
About WikiData: I've was active in Wikidata for a few months and have used rollback many times. Since February I am not active in Wikidata so often in favor of the small projects, therefore I also use the rollback right in Wikidata rarely. :"He can ask for 2FA in the meantime:" I already use 2FA.
"In any case, he does not have enough maturity to be GS and the number of his modifications that have been removed is largely too high (all wikis combined)" This is because I put a lot of deletion requests and are displayed as deleted after removal of the pages as contributions.
"The WikiBayer account has been around since 2015. But it started to get involved globally only 22 months ago. On Barwiki and Meta, he has only been involved for 9 months. So Futurwiki had to be used more often. Why this change? " I first started in deWiki and started later in barWiki, because I come from Bavaria and also speak a Bavarian dialect. My new name (WikiBayer) also comes from my homeland. (Bayer is the German word before Bavarian) --WikiBayer 👤💬11:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You used some rights and then stopped. It is certain that you can not misuse rights that you do not use, QED. If you are GS and no longer using this right or using it on your main wiki, your request remains worrying. I'm talking about all editions, including page creations. On dewiki, your local wiki, 47% of your page creations have been removed. It's enormous. Someone who doesn't know what can fit on his local wiki is unlikely to understand what may be appropriate on another wiki, whose language is unfamiliar to him. You explain to me the meaning of your nickname, you will not tell me that you changed the nickname for the simple fact that Futurwiki was not very "bayerisch". Nevertheless, 9 months as a sysop on a single small wiki is not convincing. —Eihel (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand you correctly you mean the created pages and not the deleted edits. The deleted pages in dewiki are IP discussion pages that will be deleted after a certain amount of time. Or redirects that were created automatically after moving. Just because I'm not active in wikidata that much anymore does not mean that I stop using some rights.

--WikiBayer 👤💬 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support--UltimoGrimm (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support One of the most active (it's only via SWV) members of SWMT. The “technical” global sysop rights has absolutely nothing to do with a “social” full sysop rights in major wikis. Do not need to create a curved hierarchical ladder. The above-mentioned local votes failed for reasons of "too early", "too few edits" and "too low language proficiency". Nothing terrible that would allow to doubt good faith or abilities of user. Sorry for my English.—Iluvatar (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, you get at the issue, which is the social part of the problem, which is the biggest concern with any request for rights. As I've said before, global sysop really can't do much technically, and the social damage is limited because the communities tend to not be active. That being said someone does need to have some understanding of the social necessities of running an online community, which being a part of the SWMT without local understandings does not do. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Number of edits in home wiki. Number of warnings on his talk page. Read his conversations (via Number of blocks. His involvement in the Wikimedia Movement in generally. The process of obtaining sysop rights is too different in wikis, and is too different goals to obtain global and local rights. Yes, we need to evaluate the candidate’s minimal social skills, his sanity, but owning a local sysop right is a very bad criterion. Moreover, in some wikis there is no working procedure for removing rights for violations.—Iluvatar (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, which is why it is not the only way a user can earn my trust, though it is the easiest. I unfortunately am still very concerned that they don't have an understanding of what it takes to be part of an active online educational community, which means I can't trust them with this right. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or maybe we have different views about GS. I believe that GS should not be an analogue of local sysop (not like in that request). GS should not block experienced conflicted users, should not try to reconcile users, should not act as an mediator or make decisions by take summarize of discussions. In my opinion, this is only a technical flag for more effective counteraction to obvious vandalism and realization technical obvious requests by local community. The rest must be decided by local sysops or stewards.—Iluvatar (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SupportGA candidate.svg Weak support. Adminship on large wikis is largely irrelevant to GS because GS only affects small wikis. GS will only enhance WikiBayer's good work with GR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Weakened due to the candidate's difficulty with distinguishing a lock from a block elsewhere on this page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support WikiBayer does an insane amount of SWMT work, and could definitely use these permissions. The global sysop group exists to do counter-spam/vandalism and maintenance, so I am not concerned with the lack of a sysop flag elsewhere. I wasn't a local sysop at time of appointment either, nor was Hoo man or PiR^2 (off the top of my head), and we all turned out fine. I have reviewed some of WikiBayer's work, and it all looks good. Best of luck, and thanks for volunteering. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Agree with Ajraddatz. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than support - Their dedication and/or contributions should be awarded with tools. No concerns here. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Enough experience with cross-wiki work - the essence of this permission. –Ammarpad (talk)
  • Support Support. I do share Tony's concerns regarding the understanding of the WMF goal. I am against of thinking of Wikimedia only as a countervandalism network. But I do not consider this is the case, and don't think being a sysop on a large project is a requirement, but is useful. I wasn't sysop on any project when I became GS, and yet I was trusted the flag and have been used it wisely. WikiBayer does a good xwiki work and is qualified for this. Esteban16 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -- Looks like a competent addition to the admin corp to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -FASTILY 06:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Per Jeff G and Ajraddatz. --Holder (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support GS is just a technical rights, don't envolve social questions (conflicts, and others). Because of this, sysop experience in a large project is not a requiriment. WikiBayer have a good cross-wiki activity. I don't see reasonable motives to not promote. Good look! Rafael (stanglavine) msg 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Very active SWMT member.--NMW03 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support active cross-wiki, can be trusted --DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Just remember to use the tools with caution and keep up the good work! --94rain Talk 08:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their reverts in dewiki often lack the necessary care; reverts and reports sometimes too hastily. -- hgzh 08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    German: wenn ein Beitrag gegen die Regeln verstößt ist dieser Rückgängig zumachen. "reports sometimes too hastily"??? Wenn ich zu hastig bin warum sperren die Administratoren die Benutzer die ich melde immer?
    If someone posts are not the rule then the undo must be made. If someone vandalised is it to report, so that no damage occurs. "reports sometimes too hastily" ??? If I'm too hasty to post report why block the admins the report IPs / users always? --WikiBayer 👤💬 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary total rollbacks past 24h: [7] [8] [9]. Not every edit, especially by new users, is completely correct from the perspective of an experienced user. This does not justify a full rollback, which should be only used for clear vandalism. If someone's posts are not perfect but no vandalism, give them the chance to ameliorate it. -- hgzh 13:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Such resets are not unnecessary and are not performed without reason by many users. The user page had completely violated the rules and therefore have i undo the User page with reference to the rules in the summary (See at the summery "Bitte Regeln für Benutzerseiten beachten"). The rule in summery was linked. In the Other Reset I have addressed the affected user on his discussion page. ---WikiBayer 👤💬 13:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support More mops are always better. Znotch190711 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Enough experience with cross-wiki work. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I have no concerns. Just keep up the good work. Masum Reza 02:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Obviously experienced user.--Hamish 10:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Rough consensus to promote. The concerns expressed by opposers have been addressed by the nominee. Ruslik (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for 逐风天地

Hi, I'm 逐风天地 (Zhufeng Tiandi), a Chinese mainland wikipedian. I have had zhwiki IPBE to edit zhwiki, but I couldn't edit enwiki or viwiki sometimes. I hope get Global IP block exempt to edit viwiki, thanks, --逐风天地 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done, Linedwell [talk] 08:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Bobo_alcazar

I' in the mainland of China, and the Great Fire Wall prevents me contributing for Wiki, I have to use VPN ect. to do it. Thank you very much.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to verify the request. — regards, Revi 19:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry.--Bobo alcazar (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this. According to your CA, I found your homewiki is zhwiki, so if you are blocked by zhwiki's local IP block, I suppose you could request local IPBE here. If that could not be proceeded, you may tell me here.--Hamish 15:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for reminding. But sometimes I may edit on other Wiki subject,and the whole Wikipedia have been banned in china. --Bobo alcazar (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valid crosswiki activity, support in general granting the permission. --Cohaf (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — regards, Revi 15:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for User:N R Pavan kumar

<Hi there, I extremely sorry for creating multiple accounts. Because I don't know the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia in the beginning. So that is the reason I got a global ban and a global lock. I am soo sorry for administrators of Wikipedia for doing a lot of work because of my sock. Now I realized my mistake. Now I know the rules of Wikipedia after I got punished by the administrator. I am really sorry for my mistakes. I beg your pardon. I believe every problem has a solution. Again I am extremely sorry. So I Kindly requesting you to Global Unblock me and Global Unban me. I beg your pardon. Regards>, thanks, --2405:204:5224:ABF2:7867:E24:62B5:E863 16:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider logging in to your account and making your request at SRG. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cant login. Because, global blocked. Please help me. 2405:204:5224:ABF2:0:0:29BB:F0AD

Locked account cannot edit so GIPBE is useless. Send an email to stewards(_AT_), however it is currently backlogged and might take some time to get your ticket processed. — regards, Revi 08:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for YouTable

As requesters above, I am a citizen of mainland China. I need the global IPBE permission to edit other wikis. Though I already have zhwiki's IPBE permission, I am not able to edit other wikis since the government had blocked all the wikis on June. So I have to use proxy on all the wikis. Thanks for your help. --YouTable (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Jswxdzc

I am a Chinese citizen and I have to gain access to Wikipedia through proxy because of the GFW, thanks. --Jswxdzc (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to your CA, I found your homewiki is zhwiki, so if you are blocked by zhwiki's local IP block or you just want to edit at zhwiki, I suppose you should request local IPBE here. If that could not be proceeded, you may tell me here--Hamish 15:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have even no authority to make a local IPBE request on that page, for my proxy IP address range is blocked globally until 2021 by Jon Kolbert. I am also interested in editing English articles but the local IPBE won't allow me to do that. --Jswxdzc (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jswxdzc: Global IP block exempt right will only let you bypass global blocks. It doesn't work if an local IP block is set. Proxies like this are blocked globally and locally. You will need a local IPBE. Masum Reza 11:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you confirm your proxy IP is only globally blocked on the projects you need to edit, you may proceed this request, but if not, I think you should go to specific project to apply since GIPBE CANNOT bypass local block. For enwiki, you could find ways to apply IPBE here, and for zhwiki, you could just leave a message here and I'll grant the right to you.--Hamish 15:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have only 8 edits which 6 are on zhwp, no reason to issue a GIPBE given low crosswiki activity. --Cohaf (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the discussion can be closed. Since I only edit English and Chinese articles for the time being, I'll just use the Unblock Ticket Request System instead(I've got the local IPBE for zh-wiki a few days ago via email). Thank you all. --Jswxdzc (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging as not done then. If you need to edit elsewhere and are prevented due to the global block, please let us know. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the UTRS just now and it says "There were errors processing your unblock appeal: Your IP Address is not currently blocked. Is it your account that is blocked?". So the request cannot be handled. However, I am still unable to edit the en-wiki with the previous IP range block message(when I test the sandbox). What should I do now? --Jswxdzc (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry... My proxy application has a auto-config whitelist which includes as it is not blocked in China. I solve that by checking the box "proxy all traffic". The request has been sent. --Jswxdzc (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Mm86152535

Well, sadly, it's GFW again. I'm a Wikipedian from Beijing, Mainland China. And I'm an autoconfirmed user. I've to use proxy to browse wiki, but its IP: is globally blocked. Besides local wiki, I need to edit on Wikimedia Common. Hence I'm applying for a GIPBE. Sincerely thanks, --Indigo Luo/ 01:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mm86152535: You can request the local ipbe in Commons. --Catherine Laurence 03:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Catherine Laurence: Thanks for your response. In fact I've been having some discussions on Wikimedia Commons, but global blocks can remove talk page access when the block is encountered, despite local IPBE. Meanwhile, global blocks actually keep me from any further possible contribution to non-zh Wiki. It's a weapon misused on me, which take me much opportunity cost. I cannot even edit my own user page on Metawiki. These are why I require an exemption. --Indigo Luo/ 05:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you really need this, but remember: gipbe can't bypass the local ban. Regards. --Catherine Laurence 06:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, I've mailed to unblock-zh for adding a local IPBE, while I still need the global one. Thank you for your help! --Indigo Luo/ 07:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mm86152535: local ipbe in Chinese Wikipedia done by Kalicine730. --Catherine Laurence 08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed. I cordially appreciate your effort! And now I'm sure I really need a GIPBE, because I'm still experiencing blocks on Wikimedia Commons pages, manifesting the local IPBE isn't plenty for me. --Indigo Luo/ 08:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg DoneAjraddatz (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for CptViraj

Hii, due to my personal and technical reasons i'm using open proxies and tor, I've been autoblocked many times. I want temporary (until my problems get resolved) IP block exemption. Note - I'm using proxy for almost 1 month and i know that it's against Wikimedia policy, But i'm trying to contribute legitimately. Also i haven't used any alternative accounts, and even i haven't edited without login (only 1 edit) . Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 05:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CptViraj: Hi, this is the place for asking global rights indefinitely. You may want to request for this right on Steward_requests/Global_permissions/Approved_temporary. Masum Reza 15:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masumrezarock100, that's incorrect. CptViraj, please ignore the above comment. This is the correct place to request this right. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: Sorry. I saw this. So. Masum Reza 16:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please see the notice on the top of that page. The page holds approved requests for temporary global permissions until they expire; it is not where one requests global rights. That is always done here. Vermont (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CptViraj: For how long do you need GIPBE? Ruslik (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For 6 months. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for 我爱大日如来

This is my other account, because I have to use VPN in mainland China. thanks, --Thyj (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Aoke1989

Hello, I often edit on English Wikiquote (have created at least 20 pages) and Chinese Wikiquote, sometimes I also edit on En、Ja Wikipedia and other wiki. So if I have a global permissions(I live in China), I don't need to apply one by one, thanks. --Aoke1989 (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — regards, Revi 10:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for AHbot

Please give global IP block exempt right. My bot runs from VPS which IP fell under global blocked range, thanks, --Anatoliy (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Mac LAK


Currently blocked on edition because I switched to NordVPN, mostly because of my usual ISP's filtering.

Therefore, I request a global IP block exemption, but mostly for French and English Wikipedia if not possible globally.

Thanks in advance.

--Mac LAK (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for UWCTransferBot

Please give global IP block exempt right. My bot runs from VPS which IP fell under global blocked range, thanks, --Anatoliy (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for 高文海

I'm living in China and I have to use VPNs to make edits due to Internet censorship in China. I've already got IPBE on Chinese Wikipedia but I need to make edits on other projects such as Wikibooks. Thanks, --高文海 (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Cswquz


I am from mainland China, which blocked all projects of wikimedia since April this year, and so from then on I can only view and edit Wiki via VPNs, which are deemed as open-proxies. I am an IPblock-exempt user on, with fairly well credit (having edited for thousands of times without a single block).

I mainly edit on, but sometimes I need to edit on other wiki projects as well, including and wikidata (I have contributed hundreds and dozens of edits on them respectively), etc. So please allow me to bypass the ipblock, thanks,

--Cswquz (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for LuanNguyen (M.A)

Hello! Global IP block exempt for my IP "" (LuanNguyen (M.A) Please give global IP block exempt right. My IP "" (LuanNguyen (M.A) runs from VPS which IP fell under global blocked range, thanks, --LuanNguyen (M.A)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) as of 07:45, 20 August 2019

Fishy paragraph. Moved down to current position.--Cswquz (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LuanNguyen (M.A): Please, log-in. Ruslik (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My IP is normal. I am very pleased that you have handled it for me very quickly. Thanks Ruslik (talk! LuanNguyen (M.A) (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Jagulin

Occationally blocked when travelling etc. I'd like to ask for exemption from the global IP block. I'd also like to remind about the [[Global_blocks#Guidelines|]] saying Global blocks should, (..) be placed with the anonymous only flag on. I'm asuming it means that registered users should not be affected. For a global IP block I see no reason to block authenticated users, especially users with a good track record (autoconfirmed on some site). Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis. The block was made by Jon Kolbert ( The reason given is Open Proxy: Colocation webhost - blocked range is

Thanks! --Jagulin (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Blueberry72

Hello, a few days ago I notice that using a VPN service I cannot edit on Wikipedia, because I find myself with a blocked IP. It is not essential for me to use a VPN, but it is a protection for my computer and I'd rather not to disable it when I write on Wikipedia. I'm most active on Italian Wikipedia (as autopatrolled user), but I also contribute to English Wikipedia (as extended confirmed user). I request a global IP-block, thanks. Blueberry72 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Trailblazer101

I was going to request a page protection for a page on Wikipedia, but, when I submitted the form, I got the IP block message. I'd like to say that I am only using a VPN for the means of bypassing internet restrictions forced upon me by my parents due to our internet provider allowing so, and I would like to have this block undone and a global sysop done for me so I can proporly go about things such as page protection requests properly, as I have no malicious intent to use my VPN for harmful things on Wikipedia or any other sites. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trailblazer101, I'm assuming you mean you want IP block exemption? Vermont (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'd like. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great! :) I've moved this request to the correct location. Vermont (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101: Did you get a message specifically about a global block or local one on English Wikipedia? Ruslik (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a global block I believe. I haven't been having any issues since I quit using the VPN, so, I think I'm fine now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global IP block exempt for Daniel J Zhao

Hi, for most of the Chinese Wikipedian, using VPN or some other tools to edit Wikipedia is a "normal" thing, especially when they live in mainland China and they are not "government guys". Just in case someday I wake up and suddenly find out that I can't edit Wikipedia by using VPN, I request a global IP-block, thanks. --Daniel J Zhao (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global rename permissions

Global rename for QueerEcofeminist

Not ending before 20 August 2019 10:07 UTC

I would love to help in renaming, I am involved in cross-wiki antivandalism work, I actively contribute to enwiki, mrwiki, hiwiki, commonswiki. I think I am aware of policies (Global and few local projects too.) thanks and regards. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 10:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support I think QueerEcoFeminist can handle the task of renaming users easily. He seems to be active in offline Wikipedia work too, like workshops. I think he has the capacity and wisdom to take this responsibility, as he is active in other Wiki projects too. He has done translations of policy documents in regional languages so he must be aware of policies/guidlines. --Pushkar Ekbote (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question just for clarification, what was this and this all about? I tried to go through myself but it's rather hard to get the context via translation. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae:Yes, That was edit warring and then block on me by one ex-temporary sysop on mrwiki, this link is about the warning given to me by the ex-temporary sysop and second link is summary and diffs of history where they have miss-used power/tools against me with reverts and deletions against me. Interestingly no other sysop or crat ever took any action against the ex-temporary sysop who miss-used their tools. Thanks to the community who refused to continue their temporary sysop rights and they were de-sysoped automatically. But now everywhere I am asked to give justifications for that two hour block which was imposed on me unjustfully. Diffs provided by me in second link clearly show who was abusing tools. Hope this is enough? QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Question: if a user is blocked on a project where you do not speak the language or has significant number of edits (over 1000) on a project where you don't speak the language, how would you handle the request? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Requests seeking block evasion or getting rid of earlier conflicts can't be processed. So, I will suggest the user to request again when they are unblocked. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 04:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I don't want to comment on the misinformation spreaded about my block actions on the candidate on mrwp.(As the block was not questioned by local 'crat nor when it was addressed on SN then) As a administrator there I was clearly aware how to use tools and stop vandalism on that wiki. This is nothing new that the candidate is here just to gain userrights but this time it's a global one. Being a fellow volunteer I know this strategy well of the candidate as well as I can even now give a list of all usernames who will be here to support the candidate.(which has already started) It's nothing new this is a all-time show on Marathi Wikipedia that a group of few accounts are everytime used for voting and vote influencing and the candidate clearly knows to give it a perfect community voice. I don't want to exaggerate more just want to inform that the candidate has been successfully able to collect 12 hats in a period of 5 months. I myself don't find any constructive works done by the user after gaining the Hat.(patrolled even deleted pages?). The greed for power is so much that the user has even face insults for his requests such as importers(which is granted by stewards but requests are addressed to admin), Rollback(which is technically only given to admins as it's a small wiki), Bot, Administrator on mrwq (same vote influencing pattern used and unsuccessful for hatcollecting). Seeing the speed of it I predict soon we will be seeing the candidate at WMF/BE 2020.(just joking:) ) . The candidate must stick to the fact that We are here to write an encyclopedia and not to collect hats. We have responsibilities of maintaining the project for the spirit of volunteering of the open collaboration movement. Hope you understand the debt of the volume this wmf sites and its userrights hold. It's not just the matters to post on userpages. Thank you and best wishes. --Tiven2240 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, while I haven't interacted with QueerEcofeminist, I'd like to point out that patrolling pages that are now deleted on commons is not improper: per c:Commons:Patrol#What to mark as patrolled: "Problematic content, after it has been tagged for deletion." should be marked as patrolled. If QueerEcofeminist tagged pages for deletion, they were right to also mark them as patrolled, so that other patrollers wouldn't need to spend time looking at them, only to find that they were already properly tagged. That aside, do you have any examples of w:en:Wikipedia:Hat collecting? I'm not sure about mrwiki, but on enwiki hat collecting means collecting rights so that you have the rights, instead of actually using them. QueerEcofeminist seems to have used their patroller rights, so I don't believe that it counts as "hat collecting". Are there other examples? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Sorry but answer to Tony's question is not what I was expecting. If one don't know the language they should contact someone who know the language. Let alone the block one can't decide requesting user's intention. Also many user requests renames because of blocks (which are username policy violations). ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q: Have you ever helped with the rename process, anywhere on the wiki-sphere? (For example, clerking on SRUC or enwiki's CHU(U/S), helping newbies or others struggling with renames, etc etc) — regards, Revi 09:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, Not more than, sharing links to page where they can request rename. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 10:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose OpposeEven users with a block in a project have the right to rename. In the above case, a global renamer should investigate why the user wants to change his name.--WikiBayer 👤💬 09:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lock? Vermont (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ups: was a Typing error. I mean block.-WikiBayer 👤💬 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be logged in to access the requests page. I don't think a locked user can access any page on Wikimedia.  — FR (mobileUndo) 13:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiBayer and FR30799386: There is no such thing as "a lock in a project" on any WMF project.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WikiBayer, you’re also wrong. We don’t rename users that are indefinitely blocked on their home project as a matter of convention. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: The guideline is "The user does not seek the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct.". A user who is active in several projects but is blocked in a project may also be renamed as long as he does not want to disguise anything.--WikiBayer 👤💬 15:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WikiBayer, yes, and the traditional interpretation of that is that it strongly discourages renames of indefinitely blocked users as it is presumed to be for evasion of scrutiny. I'm opposing, but they got the general idea on that correct, and if that is the reason for your oppose, you should reconsider. See my response below for more. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not really dealt with the subject yet, but it does not matter if it's done in practice or not, the answer to that question was not satisfactory, so my decision--WikiBayer 👤💬 16:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral Support Support. Good intentions to help in this area should be encouraged, however, lack of experience (per revi question) and lack of familiarity of rename process (per Tony question and 1997kB) leave me only able to give a moral support. Don't be discouraged, keep on helping out and thanks for volunteering. --Cohaf (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose On the block thing, they got the general idea correct: we usually do not allow renames of accounts that are indefinitely block on their home project. My larger concern is with the willingness to decline on complex cases on projects where they don't speak the language. Yes, I'll sometimes rename uncontroversial Hebrew or Japanese users, but anyone with substantial edits or substantial edits and a block it is best to defer to a renamer who is familiar with the local project and their customs. Renaming is only global because of SUL. There is no global username policy, and renames/vanishings, etc. are still controlled by a patchwork of local policies as to what is generally agreed to be acceptable there (well, technically it's just a blocking policies, but it may as well be local rename policies.) The willingness to not act is more important than the willingness to act, and I'm opposing that for this reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QueerEcofeminist:First of all, deal with the renaming process. Global renamer should only be involved locally before they act globally.-WikiBayer 👤💬 17:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing The Request - I am withdrawing my request and I will come back again after gaining enough experience. thanks for your comments and suggestions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 21:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global rename for Vit Koz

Not ending before 17 August 2019 21:05 UTC

Hi! In 2019 I had my first experience to join the stewards team. I suppose it was too early. Actually, in the process of working on Wikipedia I had a need for rename global accounts. For today I am the editor of the belarusian Wikipedia, autoeditor of the russian Wikipedia and sysop of the belarusian Wikiquote and belarusian Wikibooks. Vit; talk 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Oppose I'm very sorry, I am normally super supportive of local users getting rights to help with their language group, but there are two things missing here: one, you aren't a sysop or any position requiring some community trust on the main language project, so we have nothing to know if your local communities support you. I don't really consider temporary sysop roles in fulfilling this because that normally indicates that there is an extremely small local community.

    The second concern I have is that I'm not sure you'd be able to effectively communicate with other renamers. You didn't format this request correctly, and your request itself isn't clear. This makes me concerned that any issues raised with you about rename procedures might not be addressed, which could have a negative impact on projects outside your home project. I'm really sorry, because like I said, I would love to have a Belarusian renamer, but I'm not sure if you're the best person suited to be it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @TonyBallioni: As always, I have questions at SRGP/Global Rename, pardon me. You said that he don't have position indicative of community trust, isn't autoreviewer and editor in some sense means they are trustworthy in the main language project? Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, Cohaf. Not really. Autoreviewer is handed out pretty freely on most projects, and editor doesn’t show trust by the community as a whole. IMO, renamer is more sensitive than even global sysop because it is the only global permission where use on large projects with active communities and policies around usernames and renaming exist is anticipated. I don’t think sysop is a requirement, but being able to demonstrate trust and support from a stable community as a whole is, which I do not see here. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Moral support as I note their enthusiasm to serve Wikimedia as a whole. I commented on their SE that Global Rename is all they need and hence, I am glad to see this application. Language skills will be a plus. If passed, I hope you will use the tools very carefully and consult experienced renamers if in any, even finest doubts, if not elected, I hope you won't be disheartened and continue the good work. --Cohaf (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Sorry, but I also see trust and communication concerns here which is essential due to the nature of permission. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose(discussion)--WikiBayer 👤💬 17:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Patriccck (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Per others. --Patriccck (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. Haven't had time to look into this in depth, but Tony sums up my thoughts so far. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 09:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per TonyBallioni. Concerns with communication and no obvious need for the tool -FASTILY 04:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done No consensus --Alaa :)..! 13:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions

2FA Tester for Viztor

Need 2FA for interface adminship, thanks, --Viztor (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: Can you tell me which wiki you are working as an interface administrator? Catherine Laurence 15:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Laurence, 2fa is a pre-requisite for IA, see RFA on Wikisource:zh:Wikisource:管理员/Viztor. Viztor (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw the administrator election instead of the interface administrator election. --Catherine Laurence 15:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine Laurence, there is no separate IA election. Viztor (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I can't understanding the reason for requesting. And the administrator does not have the rights of the interface administrator in the Chinese Wikisource. Regards. Catherine Laurence 15:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least read Steward_requests/Permissions#Interface_administrator_access before asking questions? Viztor (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg DoneAjraddatz (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for rgbartlett

Please enable 2FA on my account, I've read the help page and have a password manager which supports 2FA/OTP, thanks, --Rgbartlett (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — regards, Revi 09:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Erintiransom

Please enable 2FA for my user. I use 2FA everywhere, call me a security freak. I believe it should be standard for all users in most websites. Oh, I have read the Help page. thanks, --Erintiransom (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — regards, Revi 09:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Tom Littrell

I wish to enable 2FA to keep my account secure. I have read the Help page, thanks, --Tom Littrell (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — regards, Revi 09:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for arukun14

Hi there, I would like to have 2FA as a security measure for my account. I have read the Help section, thanks, --arukun14 (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Jaledwith

I'd like 2FA on my account simply to keep it more secure. I've read the help doc, thanks, --Jaledwith (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done, Linedwell [talk] 06:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for silraks

I would like to access 2FA so that my account is secured better. I have read the help page. Thank you. --Silraks (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg DoneMarcoAurelio (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for The Grid

I wish to test and use 2FA on here. I have read the Help section. Thank you. --The Grid (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Rail01

I want to keep my account more secure. Also, I'm translator and additional context on translating messages would be helpful when other methods of authentication will came out, thanks, --Rail01 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for FNDE

I would like to test the 2FA feature, I've read the instructions carefully. --FNDE (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done, Linedwell [talk] 06:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for lutoma

I'd like to secure my account since I've had it for a long time and would rather not lose it. Also, as appreciative as I am of the concerns about people locking themselves out of their accounts and the resulting support workload, I find it extremely irresponsible to restrict 2FA to just a privileged few from an infosec POV. I've read the instructions. Thanks, --Lutoma (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Glory20

Greeting, I'm receiving emails about someone trying to access my email and trying to change my password, but it failed. I need to active the protecting feature to my account, I have read the instructions. Thank you --Glory20 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for StephenWade

I enable two-factor authentication on all accounts possible. I would like access to use two-factor authentication on Wikipedia. I have read the instructions. --StephenWade (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done --Alaa :)..! 13:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Alpaca·Fur

I'm trying to enable two-factor authentication on every account I can, so I would like to use it on Wikipedia as well. I have read the instructions. Thank you! --Alpaca·Fur (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Ruxnor

Just making sure all of the accounts I have on online services are protected by 2FA. Thanks in advance. --Ruxnor (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruxnor: Have you read the docs? Ruslik (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: I have read the documentation. --Ruxnor (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Esrever

I've enabled 2FA on all of my accounts where possible, given the security benefits it offers. I have read the appropriate documentation on Wikipedia Wikimedia. Esrever (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for The4kman

I'd like to enable two-factor authentication on every account of mine and I would like to use it on Wikipedia as well. I have read the instructions. Thanks in advance! --The4kman (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for serenewaffles

I'd like to have 2FA activated for my account. I've read the instructions and warnings on Help:2FA, and I understand the risks. Thanks, --Serenewaffles (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Mgalibert89

I would like to setup 2FA to my account. I have read the instructions on the Help:2FA.

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Cianhughes

I confirm that I have read the instructions on Help:2FA. I've had multiple failed login attempts on my account and therefore would like to enable 2FA, thanks, --Cianhughes (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Amolbk

I have read Help:2FA and am aware of the known issues. I am concerned about security and usually make it a point to enable 2FA wherever available, thanks, --Amolbk (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Daylen

Since I have password autofill enabled in my web browsers, I would like to add a second step of authentication required to access the account. I also own multiple types of security keys and would like the ability to test 2FA via WebAuthn, once the integration is live. I've read and understand the contents of Help:2FA. Thank you. Daylen (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2FA Tester for Bcat

I am setting up 2FA for as many of my accounts as possible due to recent password compromises. I haven't edited in some time, but want to ensure my account doesn't get hijacked in the future. --Bcat (talk | email) 03:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the instructions on the Help:2FA? — regards, Revi 10:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcat:? --Alaa :)..! 03:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't read the docs. Declined. — regards, Revi 16:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for other global permissions

remove global OTRS member for B

Thanks, --Krd 10:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done --Alaa :)..! 10:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Eurodyne

Thanks, --Krd 10:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done --Alaa :)..! 10:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renew global interface editors for Isarra

Not ending before 14:09, 15 August 2019 UTC

I don't use this much, but it's very useful in particular when I need to debug someone's user scripts or fix various content model issues, especially given how hacky the normal permissions around that are, so I'd like to keep it for that purpose in particular. Originally described purpose does still stand as well (css/interface/whatever fixes around deployed products, especially across different languages and projects) at least in theory, though it hasn't come up much in practice since we've been trying to keep as much as possible as universal as possible to the skins/extensions themselves, and most of the projects have been pretty good about cleaning up their own workarounds without any issue once no longer needed, but it's kind of hard to predict what will come up. -— Isarra 14:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does this have to do with Global interface editor perms? (Edit conflict.)Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the global interface editor group includes the suppressredirect right, and Isarra did not (as far as I can tell) belong to any other groups granting them that right. * Pppery * it has begun 15:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that single move is a reason to completely remove her permissions? Seems like an issue you could have left her a message about... eight months ago (or now if you just noticed it now). – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont like to badger opposes but this oppose is really something I have to call out. First, suppressing that redirect isn't causing much harm as compared to suppressing a cross mediawiki to template move, it just save admin time on an uncontroversial R2 CSD. Given the immerse work they do as a developer and the clear need, an oppose on such rationale seems inappropriate in proportion. To be clear I'm not in line with using perms at wiki but I think this can be overlooked as an genuine error. I earnestly hope you can reconsider. Thanks much.--Cohaf (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect suppression does not meet R2, because that speedy criterion only applies to cross-namespace redirects from mainspace. Nor does it (from what I can see as a non-admin) appear to meet any other of the local criteria for suppression of redirects. * Pppery * it has begun 21:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you see the point of the opposition to your oppose. It doesn't matter if they weren't completely within policy in this one instance eight months ago on enwiki. That's something to note to them as wrong, not to prevent them from volunteering in the future as a global interface editor. Vermont (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful if the candidate could acknowledge the problematic nature of this (presumably accidental) action. (Was this ever brought up on a talk page? I'm confused as to why it's being brought up here, unless there was any actual conflict relating to it?) One slight misuse should not disqualify someone. --Yair rand (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yair rand: It wasn't brought up, no. The fact that it wasn't brought up, and still hasn't been brought up with me directly, makes me a little dubious as to how problematic it really was to begin with, though I certainly understand that some projects in particular tend to prefer local actions be performed by local users, simply on principle. Perhaps someone should clarify now exactly how problematic this is, such that I have better context with which to avoid similar mishaps in the future? @Pppery: can you help with this? -— Isarra 00:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support - I am also not concerned with one pagemove from eight months ago, and do not think it is a valid reason to prevent the good work that Isarra does with the permission. That sort of concern could be resolved with a quick message, to the extent that it is even an undesirable action, and IMO should not be used to oppose at this stage. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Won't break things. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I was not going to vote initially, but it become necessary to counter nonsensical votes. Also to reiterate (what I've said previously) this right should be given permanently. it's currently the most restrictive right of all available non-staff groups, and even then it has more staff than volunteers. It should only be removed either due to obvious abuse or long-time inactivity. These renewal quasi-votes are just bureaucratic timesink.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per Ammarpad. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I have full confidence that the incident mentioned above was not an act of malice, that it was likely a mistake, and that it could avoid being repeated through a simple message, no need to take away permissions. Such an incredibly minor thing I don't even understand how it's suddenly come up after this amount of time. Agreed with Ammarpad re: expiry of this group. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support also per Ammarpad, having trusted users to go through this bureaucratic nonsense is...well, nonsense. Isarra is a trusted MediaWiki developer who has been around for years, and she goes around fixing things, often spending considerable time to come up with a functional, maintainable, long-term solution instead of a simple hack. The movement needs more great people like her who are willing to donate their time and expertise to improve the technical state of things. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 19:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per above. I trust Isarra to do a good job and frankly I couldn't give more of a fuck about that page move. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 23:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my capacity as an sysop I have ensured that the scope will never be exceeded again by granting +extendedmover. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support clear net positive. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support seems to be OK, but without spending a long time looking through logs I'm not seeing much "need" here (GUC results aren't making any actual usage needs clear - though there certainly could be things that aren't very evident in that report). I weakly opposed this renewal last year, but haven't seen any repeats of that concern so am moving to the + side. If there is a better explanation of the need that can be illustrated this would probably be a normal support. I don't see any special reason to override the normal expiration/renewal process for this level of access though. — xaosflux Talk 03:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 04:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--Turkmen talk 12:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Enough experience. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support--WikiBayer 👤💬 08:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done for 1 year. Ruslik (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Jamesofur

Thanks, --Krd 06:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Matiia (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Taysin

Thanks, --Krd 06:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Matiia (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Callanecc

Thanks, --Krd 09:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done.--HakanIST (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Savh

Thanks, --Krd 09:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done.--HakanIST (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Huji

Thanks, --Krd 09:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done.--HakanIST (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Thanks for this. I had gotten an email about inactivity. In reality, I only focused on the "fa" queue (Persian requests) and there are not many of those, while there are a large number of active OTRS members who speak Persian. I feel like my help is not needed at this time. If things change, I will reapply Huji (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for HJ Mitchell

Thanks, --Krd 09:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done.--HakanIST (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Lvova

Thanks, --Krd 10:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stryn (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove global OTRS member for Olimar

Thanks, --Krd 10:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stryn (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]