Steward requests/Global permissions

Your request might be rejected if you don't follow the instructions. Please review Global IP block exemption. You may request Global IP block exemption via stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org if you can not edit this page.

Please note: Global IP block exemption does NOT make one immune to locally-created blocks of any sort, only global blocks.

=== Global IP block exempt for {{subst:u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ===
{{sr-request
 |status = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain = global<!--don't change this line-->
 |user name = {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}
}}
<Add an explanation here>, thanks, --~~~~

I regularly open public Tor relays from my networks and can not edit some wiki and perform my cross-functions in a number of projects without global IP block exemption. For example file renaming on Commons and post global delinking using designed for this gadget. ----sasha (krassotkin) 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Done for 6 months. Please re-request if you need it after then. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 07:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Ajraddatz: Unfortunately Krassotkin forgot to mention that in ru.wiki (his home wiki) ip-block-exemption flag was removed at 27.08.2015. He tries to appeal against this decision to other administrators (see discussion). Even if the discussion is not finished now, there is a strong consensus against the return of a flag. Since there is no other project where he currently needs this flag, it looks like he successfully tried to evade this decision by requesting ip-block-exemption flag on meta. In ru.wiki he brags with it and encourage other users to come with "any plausible-looking reason" ("с любой выглядящей правдоподобно причиной") to receive this flag. --DR (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for bringing this up. The global IPBE flag does not grant any exemption from local blocks, so this will not allow Krassotkin to bypass any local actions designed to prevent disruptive behaviour. Furthermore, IPBE flags simply allow a user to continue to edit - is there any indication why this should not be allowed to happen in this case? Does this user display a pattern of disruptive behaviour for which they should be blocked (and if that is the case, why aren't they)? It is true that some people probably collect this right as a fancy hat to wear, but ultimately that has no impact on anyone but themselves. Ajraddatz (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

As per IP block exemption policy in ru.wiki the user can receive this exemption only if he can show good cause. Throughout the discussion in ru.wiki Krassotkin has refused to name (privately or public) a reason why he need the flag - neither good nor bad. I don't see any difficulties in granting global IPBE flag to Krassotkin (we even encourage users in simular situations to request a global flag instead of local), but I want stewards (now and in 6 month) to know the whole background of this request. --DR (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

As you may well be aware that the entire Chinese version of wikipedia is blocked by the Firewall of the Chinese government at the moment, and on many occasions some pages of the English version cannot be accessed as well, which is why it led to many users, including myself, had to use proxy tool to bypass this censorship. For the above reason, I hope that wikipedia will, after reviewing my case carefully by considering my editing history and contributions to this website, grant me exemptions which will be essential for me to continue editing the Chinese wikipedia.

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Steward requests/Global permissions/Global renamers

=== <Add requested permission here> for {{subst:u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} ===
{{sr-request
 |status = <!-- don't change this line -->
 |domain = global <!-- don't change this line -->
 |user name = {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} <!-- don't change this line unless you're nominating another user -->
}}
<Add an explanation here>, thanks, --~~~~

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

The only way to do this is to add 'editprotected' userright to the "global bot' global group. This will allow editing protected double redirects on all global bot wikis but will require a consensus. For the wikis where global bots are not allowed there is no simple solution. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh indeed. I am only looking at wikis with global bot opt in with my request. My bot already has a global flag. I was told a special usergroup could be formed for allowing only protected redirect pages to be edited. This would be ideal for the purpose I am posting. It could also be beneficial to extend such a restricted extension to the global bot flag. Such a redirect bot flag would be helpful on wikis that opt-out of a global bot flag where the alternative is having an admin bot which isn't something many communities are comfortable in having. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 11:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The problem is that 'editprotected' userright would apply to any page in any namespace. There is no way to apply it only to redirects. Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Hmm, in that case would it be ok for me to request just this userrright? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 22:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

'Editprotected' is a serious userright. Giving it to you will require a broad consensus. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Could we get an idea of how many of such cases there are, approximately? I recall a previous request for globaleditinterface with a similar reasoning, then to correct double redirects after double renames. Sa vh ^ñ 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, how many such pages are there? Or in other words, how many hours would you need to complete the job? I'd support granting the right for a day or two until the cases at hand are fixed. A steward can then check the global edits/logs to see nothing weird happened and remove the right again. Chances of abuse seem minimal, in such a way. --Nemo 17:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose Oppose I don't think that it is appropriate for stewards to provide a global right that overrides local administrators, especially one that resides with a bot, for a limited needs case. The protection will have been placed purposefully, and it is not up to a person from outside that wiki to overwrite and override that purposeful decision. In the end it is up to local administrators to fix such issues of their making, and bots are just assistants to the process, not decision-makers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Sorry for vanishing. I didn't see any responses here for quite some time and found myself to be distracted. :) The kind of activity I am trying to engaged with is covered by the global bot policy. It is that non-controversial. A double redirect is a redirect redirecting to another redirect which ends up at an article at some point. The bot will ignore it otherwise. So self redirects, redirect loops, broken redirects and interwiki redirects will be ignored.
• There is no decision to be reached though. Local admin decision would not be overridden at all. The bot will only comply with consensus of the local wiki where the consensus is the move of a page. This is the main source of double redirects where redirects to an article suddenly become double redirects when the page they are redirecting to itself turns into a redirect after a page move. A Special:Doubleredirects report is generated infrequently (generally weekly). Redirects are typically protected against vandalism or other bad behavior and more often than not there is no reason to unprotected them since redirects aren't meant to change unless the page itself is renamed/moved (the page itself could be protected from pagemoves by non-admins for example to prevent abuse). So the protection is probably forgotten or left there over persistence of some troll or vandal.
• This Special:Doubleredirects report has a finite length so if a wiki has over a certain number of redirects it will not generate any more of them. I think the limit is something like 5,000 and I do not imagine any wikis are remotely close to that but arguably it would reach it eventually if we assume every wiki will be as big as English Wikipedia. The problem here is with a performance impact. Since I am running the bot on practically every wiki the bot will check to see if the reported double redirect is fixable. This takes a few seconds but when you have ~200-~300 wikis and have just 10 from each you get fairly large number of pages to review with each run of the bot. It is nothing losing sleep over but it would be nice not to have.
• Statistically, you typically see one or two of these popping up per medium sized wiki a month on average. This sort of a thing accumulates over the years. It is too much work to go through each wiki to verify if they handled all their protected double redirects. In the past often I found myself explaining why redirects need to be fixed since I make a point to solve this problem with my bot so that the local community isn't inconvenienced.
• There is no reason to spend developer time or community/human time to fix this problem that already has a solution. The double redirect script never makes mistakes since it merely follows a redirect chain to its destination and posts that title as the new redirect. So, I'd rather have everyone work on everything else imaginable instead of hand fixing double redirects. :) I would be OK if this access is granted for 2-3 days a year (or every 6 months) since the problem does not need to be solved that often. Work load would be much less in future cases since the problem would not be allowed to accumulate.

-- とある白い猫 ^chi? 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• Comment Comment Please explain your indefinitely block on plwp.[1]--Infinite0694 (Talk) 07:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Infinite0694 They blocked inactive interwiki bots. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 07:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment Comment Can you elaborate why null edits are needed? Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Steinsplitter Null edits, always required to update page links and categories, see: T86504 and T109404. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 18:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Strong oppose This request is a total impertinence (an explanation for what the right is needed was only given after someone asked; and it's still not clear why high API limits are needed for some boring null edits) & the bot owner is not trustworthy at all (see e.g. block on fawiki). --MF-W 18:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

MF-W My block in fawiki is not about trustworthy, it was for a personal attack, definitely you are confusing things together because, you called me a troll on langcom mailing list and avoided to import pages for azbwiki for your racist material, you avoided to act as admin in incubator but acted as a boss and I'm not your slave, to always humiliate me everywhere, you don't have any code talent and know nothing about mediawiki. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 19:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Why do you need to bypass normal limits for this? --Glaisher (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Glaisher This right provides higher limits on each query (returns 500 pages for slow queries and 5000 fast queries while returns only 50 pages for a normal user) which makes a bot run really fast. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 12:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Glaisher This request is already declined, don't question me something already you know. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 12:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

If it does that many writes in a small time, I'll have to oppose this as doing that many writes has the potential to adversely affect site performance. But that being said, I don't think there's an issue if this is done on a reasonable rate. This type of updates are not high priority anyway. --Glaisher (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

AFAICS, this hasn't been closed yet and I wasn't questioning about something I already did know. --Glaisher (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

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

BTW, I will not have any internet access whatsoever from August 30 until September 7 and thus will not be able to reply to questions here during that time. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• User groups — Information on user groups
• Global rights log — Log of global permissions changes
• Archive