Steward requests/Global permissions: Difference between revisions

Please be sure to follow the instructions below:

Your request might be rejected if you don't follow the instructions. Please review [[<tvar name="1">Global IP block exemptions</tvar>|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.</translate>

=== 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}}
}}
<translate><!--T:6-->
<Add an explanation here>, thanks</translate>, --~~~~

I do not have a home internet connection and usually edit Wikipedia/Commons/Wikivoyage while tethering my computer to my mobile phone to use the latter's internet connection. It seems the IP address for the phone changes often (I can't tell how often), based on how the mobile phone service provider routes the connection. Today, for the first time, I logged in and nothing seemed unusual until I decided to edit on Wikipedia and could only view the source because the IP address of my internet connection had a global block for long-term vandalism. I copied the information about the block (including IP address) and sent an email to the steward who blocked the IP address (since I couldn't even edit the page Steward requests/Global to request an unblock). However, I received an email that the message was undeliverable, so I don't have the IP address, but I think it started with 172 or 176 and was blocked by User:Savh on 24 January for one month.

In the past, when viewing Wikipedia while not logged in, I've seen the notification of a message on the talk page for that IP address at the time saying that the IP address was blocked, but that I could get around that if I logged in. I presume that is a local block, while the global block I encountered doesn't even allow editing if logged in...and not even the page to request an unblock!? I waited a couple hours, then restarted my phone to try to get a different IP address when it reconnected to the network, which worked to get around the block. However, to prevent this problem in the future, I'm requesting a global IP block exempt. I am an administrator on the English Wikivoyage (although I haven't been very active there for over a year) and have contributed almost 1700 edits on the English Wikipedia (no vandalism, mostly significant contributions and few minor edits). I give my permission for a CheckUser to be performed to verify my claim that I mostly edit using my phone's internet connection, so the IP addresses should be associated with T-Mobile USA. Thanks. --AHeneen (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I encountered a global block again, it's for 172.56.26.31 (also by Savh...I'm not sure if this is the same IP address as earlier). This was fixed by restarting the phone, but that's quite annoying to have to do. AHeneen (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Done.

@Savh: I see that the blocks are for LTAs, so I didn't soften the blocks on the mobile networks. Would you be able to look at the blocks and the problem child that we are managing and see if we can go to soft blocks or not. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. AHeneen (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I'm an editor from China and have to use proxies to bypass Internet censorship. Though Wikimedia projects aren't currently blocked here, the connection can get sometimes wacky. The particular proxy I'm using is my own VPS, 162.220.8.43 (whose rDNS points to zhaofeng.li), which is range-blocked globally by Vituzzu per NOP. I understand that some VPSes in the range may be used as open proxies, but I don't run any on my machine. I already have the exemption locally on enwiki, but having the global bit will make it easier for me to work on other projects. Thank you. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Another option is to review whether such a long rangeblock is ever necessary. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Steward requests/Global permissions/Global renamers

Not ending before 8 February 2015 18:38 UTC

• Bureaucrat on la.wikisource since 24 October 2011.--Doug. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Question Question: I'm not sure about your rename experience since you've performed only 1 rename in the past three years, out of 14 renames on la.wikisource since 2006. Or perhaps you can show your experience in other ways? Did and do you understand the rename policies (both global and local)? Trijnstel _talk 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, I have assisted in the past in local renames on other wikis, including en.wp, where I helped out on w:Wikipedia:Changing username and w:Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. In part due to a lot of work several years back unifying my own account, I was able to search out and assist with correcting errors by local crats in making name changes, for example failure to move the user pages. In addition, I am familiar with Global rename policy and I have read the technical information and understand the extension. As far as the "local rename policy", I understand the policies on many wikis but if you are speaking of la.ws in particular, it has no polices for anything.--Doug. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• On none of those projects do you seem to be really active. I really wonder if you are going to use this right. Sa vh ^ñ 21:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

=== <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 -->
}}
<translate><!--T:5-->
<Add an explanation here>, thanks</translate>, --~~~~

• Here we are a month later after my last request. I've been using the Templateeditor userright without complaint and working on developing a few of my own scripts. I'd still like to request this permission to be able to work on updating uses of addOnloadHook(), addPortletLink(), and wgVariables that aren't using mw.config.get() as they should be. Since I'd like to work on fixing these issues on MW, commons, meta, and enwp, I figured the best way for me to go is to come here and request this user group. I will happily sandbox all changes that I intend to make to these scripts and test them in all skins on all browsers they are expected to work in that I have access to, confirming the the fixes don't actually break anything. Thank you for your consideration. {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• From the global policy: „Interface editors should avoid making routine changes to the interface on larger wikis without prior agreement. Projects with established communities and processes for maintaining scripts should be avoided."
  Since you intend to mainly edit such large wikis, could you provide evidence they want you to make use of the global editinterface right rather than of local rights? Otherwise I don't see how this could be possibly approved, as out of scope. Vogone (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I wouldn't classify making fixes to scripts to address Phab:T35837 as "routine" since they are one time fixes and not something that will need to be maintained. {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• For such a powerful right, I would not expect to see something like concerns about interactions that were expressed at [1]. --Rs chen 7754 02:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

  I have no care over the raised discussion, I just do not see that we should or need to grant this right with regard to the major wikis, at least without their endorsement of the request. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I am not convinced this user knows enough about the way JavaScript (and the JS libraries we use) works yet. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• This request is clearly out of scope, per Vogone above. I also remain unconvinced that this user is a suitable candidate for the right, per concerns raised by myself and others at the user's previous requests (July 2014, December 2014). I am not sure that the user's perspective and attitude has changed since the edit warring that led to their removal as template editor on enwiki six or so months ago and that prompted an enwiki bureaucrat to make this statement about their behavior. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• +1 I also slightly agree (削除) with the disagree (削除ここまで) with the given reason (削除) above (削除ここまで) below (per Rillke). -- ↔ User: Perhelion 00:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• I agree with the scope issue also. The candidate - I'm torn about, Technical 13 is technically capable, but their interactions with other users can be challenging. I think I'd be happy for them to receive the right (assuming a need is demonstrated) after they've had the English Wikipedia Template Editor user right for six months without serious/significant problems, the right being withdrawn again etc. Nick (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• As I mentioned during the last request, I am fine with Technical 13 being granted temporary use of these rights to perform the specified task. However, I can understand the desire to get local approval first - if that could be done, then I would have no reservations about this request. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Since Technical 13 is capable and will do a simple find & replace operation, preview every diff and approve it by hand and properly test whether their changes worked, I am confident that nothing will break; instead breakage is avoided. However, Technical 13 should be careful about edit summaries (citing specific, not generic tracking task numbers). -- Rillke (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• I don't know about anyone else, but--apart from any reservations I may or may not have about T13 themself--I am quite uncomfortable with the task T13 is proposing. As a script author, I would be extremely uncomfortable with anyone editing else editing my scripts directly. While of course I don't own the script, the fact remains that, since my name is on them by virtue of the userspace they're in, I'm morally responsible for them. I make enough bugs on my own; I do not want to be responsible for others' bugs, made without my knowledge, as well. Again, this isn't particularly a reflection on T13; this is a general statement that I have quite strong negative feelings about this task. Strongly enough that I would probably full-protect my user scripts on enwiki to prevent at least non-admins from editing them, or if this were to become a standard thing, delete them entirely. I'm only speaking for myself here, of course, but the thing is that this isn't a particularly necessary task in any circumstances. User scripts are never mission-critical; there's no urgency to fix them, as their failure doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything they need to do. So, there's no urgency for this task that requires someone other than the script author to make the changes. Writ Keeper (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Full protection would do nothing, as users in this group can edit anything, even on closed wikis. --Rs chen 7754 14:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• +1 per Rillke, but -1 if the target wikis are "[mediawiki.org,] commons, meta, and enwp" because I'm not interested in handling en.wiki maintenance as part of Steward requests. I'd surely +1 if he used the flag exclusively on the wikis without any sysops: that's certainly more useful and would also be an occasion to (get better and) address concerns about technical skills. --Nemo 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• I've started processing what needs to be done. I've posted requests on the talk pages of all possibly affected scripts on meta, commons, mw, enwp, and simple so far to try and get the users who's userspace the scripts are in to update the scripts themselves per Writ Keepers concern above. In the process of doing so, I've created a new {{JS migration}} template on each wiki that categorizes all of those talk pages that haven't had their |done=no changed to |done=yes into a category of Category:JavaScripts using deprecated elements ^{( commons | mw | enwp | simple )}. I plan on going through the rest of the English speaking wikis like wikt:en:, species:en:, wikidata:, wikinews:en:, etc as well. The reason I'm starting with the English wikis is because I want to be able to help people fix their own scripts, and I wanted to start where I am able to communicate with the editors if they should have questions. {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• I have looked at this request on whether I could close it, one way or the other. The more I read, the more I had my own reflections, especially in the space as a wikizen of a sister community. That community has less availability of the technical skills and there is value for us in the assistance offered. I also see the comment from scripters about the responsibility they feel to the scripts they write and others use. I would like to see the the tasks undertaken and the improvements made, though I would like to see a process of approaching the communities through their noticeboards or if none, then VPs. I would be in favour as long as there is permission sought by community, and allow communities to decline. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • billinghurst, I'm absolutely willing to make any accommodations requested. I just want to make these deprecations known so they can be fixed and offer my technical skills in fixing them where is needed. Thank you. - {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done no consensus to grant this right. Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm currently a sysop on zhwiki. Occasionally we steal filters from other projects, and some time after when it's not behaving well the original filter had gone private and we have to invent the wheels again. I'm in abusefilter group on enwiki just for this purpose, and since not all wikis have the equivalent group, a global read-only for private filters would help a lot. Thanks. Jimmy Xu (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I support this request, though I'm honestly tempted to just grant the rights. These are passive (view-only) rights which can cause no damage in the hands of trusted users with a valid rationale for using them. Would anyone object to these rights being granted without a discussion in cases like this? Ajraddatz (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I tend to agree. Vogone (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to see a set of criteria of what is expected to qualify for the right, and the reason for it being granted. If we have the measure, and the user can present the justification then I have no issue with the right being granted by a steward without extended discussion. If a person does not meet the default criteria set, or the reason is weak, then we can ask for a broader discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree; there needs to be a definition what are "cases like this". --MF-W 00:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

We can't just use common sense here? Fine lol. I'll work on a proposal and recuse myself from closing this discussion. People should feel free to vote on this specific case, and I will link a general discussion when I make it. Thanks for the input. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Ajraddatz: my point was more that if we have a set of criteria then we can make it easy to judge and quickly assign worthy cases. A fast track process. Otherwise we have these interminable conversations (slow track) as we have little history, and ebb and flow of conversation and uncertainty whether it is a vote or not. For what it is worth ... sense is never common — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• +1 The scope is well defined so the request is fine. In general, however, we must be sure not to work around the real issue, i.e. that most of the filters so generic as to serve multiple wikis 1) shouldn't be private in the first place, 2) should be handled on Meta. In shorts: good to facilitate, but also to talk with abusefilter managers around. --Nemo 08:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Done conversation open 1+ week; no dissension to granting the right; assume consensus with positive comment; existing xwiki history of user; holder of advanced rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

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