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 exemption</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>, --~~~~

=== <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>, --~~~~

I am a sysop on Wikidata, where I have been mantaining several gadgets for months. I am fairly good at JavaScript, CSS, template syntax and Lua. I think I could help wikis with few 'technically competent' administrators - mainly the Italian versions of Wikivoyage and Wikisource, but also Wiktionary, Wikiquote, etc., and other language versions as well. I read the (proposed) policy, and of course I will not do any controversial edit, but will ask the community before, except in case of very high security issues.

Moreover, I'm a filemover on Commons, and with this right I could replace renamed files in protected pages too. --Ricordi samoa 15:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose. It's not clear to me what changes would be done, whether globally at all and why admins in the few projects you mention couldn't simply be advised by you how to edit css/js pages in the desired way. Also I think using this for changing renamed files is out of scope. --MF-W 16:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
• I agree with MF-W here. Especially the absence of any policy for this right makes it a big deal (lacking legitimacy) and unless an accurate rationale is provided this flag shouldn't be assigned. Vogone talk 17:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Oppose The issues with his failing to remove his flooder right against policy numerous times on Wikidata [1] do not inspire confidence in me for this right. --Rs chen 7754 18:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  So, because he forgot to remove a flag from his account on two (?) occasions, he can't be trusted with any unrelated tools? Seems a little unrelated to me, especially since there is no global flooder flag or relation between that and GEI. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  Well, it shows that he wasn't careful, in my opinion, especially after the first time. --Rs chen 7754 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  The scope of the GEI is to edit the mediawiki pages - he's done that quite a bit on Wikidata. If he was careless in that area, there would probably be lots of examples of that as well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  @Rschen7754: since then, I set up my mass-deletion script to automatically remove the flood flag when finished. --Ricordi samoa 19:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Oppose, since the request has no clear rational for the use of the tools. I infer you would help fix gadgets? If a more clear rational could be provided I'll reconsider. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Oppose per above. Wikidata adminship is not a qualification for this right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you all for the quick replies. I do not share Rschen7754's objection, nor Jasper Deng's. However, MF-Warburg, Vogone and Ajraddatz remind that our provisional policy requires a stricter rationale than mine. And since I planned to use the right for almost every kind of non-controversial edit the communities request - and no local administrator is able to perform flawlessly in short time - I am near to withdrawing. But I would rather wait for someone other's opinion. --Ricordi samoa 05:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I would think that if you offered your services to these communities, either language specific, or to one of the broader sister projects, eg. Wikisource, and they accepted your offer, that would constitute a need, though there would be the obvious need to keep yourself within your set boundaries. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

@Billinghurst: just for the Italian Wikisource: «Con i privilegi ridotti di utente semplice, non puoi modificare il nsMediaWiki nè i js degli altri utenti. Spero che questa limitazione sia presto superata.» «Non nego che mi punge vaghezza di candidarti come sysop su it.source per permetterti di accedere direttamente al nsMediaWiki» «se metti a posto gli script di Alex, ti facciamo una statua qui su source» —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricordisamoa (talk • contribs) LlamaAl (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC).[reply ]

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