Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Steward requests/Global permissions/2013-02

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests for global rollback permissions

Latest comment: 11 years ago 34 comments21 people in discussion

Global rollback for Chihonglee

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Status: Not done

Hello! I am Gabriel Lee, I want to be a global rollbacker since I will be hard to help SWMT without this right. I really want to help Wikimedia. Hope you will support me. Thank you.Chihonglee (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done (削除) per SNOW (削除ここまで), please read the advice from your fellow editors. Regards, --Bencmq (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Meta:Snowball? --Make cat 08:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
OK I shouldn't quote that link. The time limit exists only for successful application. --Bencmq (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Global rollback for Vacation9

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Status: Not done

Hello everybody! I'm a new and active member of the SWMT and have undone quite a few edits globally in addition to being a pre-existing rollbacker on enwiki for quite some time now, where I have undone thousands of vandalism edits. Global vandal fighting is definitely something I want to pursue, however Global Rollback would be quite a big help. I don't have to enter captchas every time I want to rollback something with external links or something else that triggers the captchas, and I would be able to undo vandalism quickly and undo page move vandalism across all wikis. I have significant rollback experience from enwiki and this would assist me greatly in the fight against vandalism. Thank you for your consideration for Global Rollback. Vacation9 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose need more crosswiki experience, and maturity issues. --Rs chen 7754 22:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand about the crosswiki experience, and I will keep fighting vandals, but could you explain the maturity issues? Vacation9 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • This is largely based off the recent argument in #wikimedia-otrs; this evidenced a failure to understand privacy-related issues and what OTRS is / how the WMF operates, and overall being disagreeable while trumpeting the horn of "maturity". The global rollback flag expands across all 700+ WMF wikis, and you will need to be able to communicate effectively and get along with people from different cultures and philosophies. Every WMF wiki has different policies, and some of them are much different than those of the English Wikipedia - in fact, some editors will hate you just because you're from the English Wikipedia. I do not see this experience with effective communication, and the #wikimedia-otrs incident didn't help my perception of that anyway, so I have to oppose. --Rs chen 7754 23:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I understand. That incident was... interesting. I don't know why you call me immature because of this however. If this is your opinion however, you are absolutely free to do so, and I don't question you. Vacation9 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not yet as per policy "users must be demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities [...] and make heavy use of revert on many wikis". Currently you haven't even edited more than 20 different wikis. For the beginning global TWINKLE might be helpful for you (it was also helpful for me before I became a GR). Please stay active in the SWMT for some month and show us more crossactivity. Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • & I do not think 18 edits on small wikis to be enough for this permission to be granted, that of course doesn't mean that your work is not appreciated, it is, just that it is a bit hard to judge things with such a limited activity so far :) Snowolf How can I help? 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Reverts seem fine except for this revert, which shows that the user is unfamiliar with Wikiversity, where such phrasing is tolerated — the edit was coming from an IP of La Trobe University, and it was not promotional. Also, possible concerns about labelling an edit "spam": [1]. The article is about a Faroese translator. The edit you reverted was to a section about how this translator won an award: the en:Barnamentanarheiðursløn Tórshavnar býráðs. What the IP added means "A complete overview is seen here:", followed by a link to the website of the en:Association of Writers of the Faroe Islands. The addition of the link is debatable, but I'm not sure it should be labelled "spam". Your reverts are appreciated, but I recommend that you use Twinkle until you need global rollback. Thank you. πr2 (t • c) 00:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the evaluation! I have applied to have common.js updated with my global.js project wide, but the bot runners aren't as active as before. Hopefully it gets done eventually, and I'll be patient. Vacation9 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per lack of cross-wiki activity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per above --cyrfaw (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose just 80 edits outside his home wiki. a×ばつpde Hello! 08:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Jasper Deng--Steinsplitter (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Not promoted due to lack of support. --Bencmq (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Latest comment: 11 years ago 108 comments60 people in discussion

Global sysop for Igna

Status: Done

Hello, I would like to request the global sysop flag. I have been active in the Small Wiki Monitoring Team on #cvn-sw connect IRC. I'm active as a global rollbacker. I have experience with the use of sysop tool on my home project, es.wikipedia. The Global sysop would help me to delete vandalic, notsense, spam pages, block spambots and persistent vandals, who do not listen to warnings. I am available on many Wikimedia IRC channels. I speak Spanish, my native languague and English (en-2). Thanks in advance --Ignacio (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Global sysop for Iste Praetor

Status: Done

Hello! I have been a member of the SWMT since autumn 2011 (though I made a wikibreak for some months in 2012 due to private reasons), so I fight vandalism and spam quite often via IRC. Therefore global sysop access would be helpful for me to delete nonsense pages, as it sometimes takes several hours or days until pages I tagged are actually deleted, or to block persistent vandals in urgent cases. I have some experience with the sysop tools as a temporary admin on Wikidata.

Thank you for your consideration! Regards --Iste (D) 14:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Use it wisely. Matanya (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Global sysop for TBloemink

Status: Done

I have been fighting cross-wiki vandalism for some time now and have been a global rollbacker for just over a year now. I feel that I have gained the experience needed for the global sysop right. I believe this will help me significantly in my cross-wiki vandalism work as part of the SWMT (where I initially started around December 2010-January 2011).

These tools will certainly help me when dealing with vandals and their nonsense pages and such. Also, the ability to block the persistent vandals out there on GS wikis without active sysops will be a useful feature too.

Some people might see my global edit count / activity a tad too low, but I believe global sysop will certainly help me fighting live spam attacks if these show up. If elected, I'd always ask a steward or more experienced global sysop for help if needed.

Note: I applied for global rollback twice; for transparency reasons, these were the requests and their results: April/May 2011 January 2012

Best regards, — TBloemink talk 15:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Use it wisely. Matanya (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Latest comment: 11 years ago 17 comments17 people in discussion

Global editinterface for Petrb

Status: Done

My previous permissions were removed due to expiration, however I am actively using this permission, either to sort out various minor requests, or configuration changes, as well for supporting huggle installations on various wiki's (User:*/huggle.css and Project:Huggle/Config pages that are protected on some projects). --Petrb (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Requests for global IP block exemption

Latest comment: 11 years ago 5 comments4 people in discussion

Global IP block exempt for Fahimrazick

Status: Done

I've granted Fahimrazick (talk · contribs) a temporary global ipbe flag to allow him to edit while a global IP block is in place. Expires on 7 February 2013. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for V3gard

Status: Not done

I am accessing Wikipedia via my VPS hosted at Linode, whose net range (2A01:7E00:0:0:0:0:0:0/64) has been blocked from editing due to several of their VPSs acting as open proxies. As this is not the case for my VPS, I request that add my IPv4 address and/or IPv6 address is added as an exception to this rule. If you are unable to locate my IPv4 or IPv6 address in your logs, please send me a PM and I will return the address(es). Thanks, --V3gard (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but why do you need to use a VPS to edit on Wikipedia? Is it really needed...? Trijnstel talk 21:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done as no reply has reached us in a month. Snowolf How can I help? 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Additional global rights

Latest comment: 11 years ago 31 comments17 people in discussion

Global abusefilter for Nemo_bis

Status: Done

All wikis have AbuseFilter enabled now, but very few have sysops who know how to use them. I sometimes (i.e. once in a year or so) kill a particularly boring day by looking into the wiki's filters, and find some syntax mistakes that sysops are happy to resolve, things like that. This is often made very hard by the fact that many filters are private, even in cases where I'm asked to check one by a local sysop, for instance Bencmq just now for a possible bug on zh.wiki, where filters 44, 47, 49, 61, 71, 75, 88, 90, 99, 103, 108, 125, 139, 140, 145 and 149 are disallow+private. If I'm granted this flag (which by the way currently lacks abusefilter-log-private for an obvious mistake), I'll never ever change any filter in any way unless explicitly and publicly requested by a local sysop. As I said, this is a very tedious task which I do only if requested or in unplanned periods of boredom, so I don't have a specific expiry to suggest; I think it would make sense to make it with undefined expiry, or with 2-3 years expiry. Thanks, Nemo 09:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment The abusefilter-log-private permission is not needed if you have both the abusefilter-modify and the abusefilter-log-detail permissions. It is only intended to give users who may not edit the filters the ability to view detailed log entries of private filters. Regards --Iste (D) 12:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks! Is this valid even if one doesn't have abusefilter-modify-restricted? (This group has it though.) Sorry for any incorrect statement, I usually have +sysop on the wikis where I look at the abuse filter so I miss some details. --Nemo 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    'abusefilter-modify-restricted' only gives you an access to additional actions like blocking. It has nothing to do with private filters. Ruslik (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether this global group is open for the community (actually only a staff member is in it) but I like your idea and Support Support to grant you the permission if possible. Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Didn't know this global right even existed, but I'd like to first see this tested before giving people the right. And is there a way to check the global changes of abuse filters -- something like this for GS? And I thought the developers were busy with creating a global abusefilter which is almost ready to use? So isn't this useless then? Trijnstel talk 21:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflicted) The global abuse filter won't eliminate the local abuse filters. There's nothing to test in this flag, it's just a small collection of rather minor rights on all wikis. As for the logs, I guess tools:~dungodung/cgi-bin/recentlogs would do the job. However, in the last few years I've proved that I'm not attached to flags and that I return them as soon as I stop having a use for them, if this is your (very valid!) concern. --Nemo 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Just to clarify that a bit: That right allows to edit abuse filters on all wikis like the local sysops can do. It got nothing to do with global abuse filters. - Hoo man (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • & Hmm, I am not sure that this right should be granted at this time. I would be interested in knowing how this group came about, as it seems to me it must have been created by WMF staff for their own purposes, see the lack of logs at Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/abusefilter but some of the more informed folks could clarify this. I do not thinks this right should or can be granted without the developing of at least a draft policy on its use, and I don't think this should regardless be granted on all wikis, major wikis can run their own abuse filter system and minor wikis have global sysops. Snowolf How can I help? 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    I should add that this is by no means a comment on the user, he does a fine job and is surely very trustworthy, it's more of a comment in general that I do not believe this userright should/could be granted. Snowolf How can I help? 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I appreciate the rational for this request, but I'm not sure if this is a good thing to do. If you wanted to maintain the filters on small wikis, I would have no problem supporting for global sysop... but this is for all projects, even large. All languages. All local practices and policies. There are some projects which use the filters for abuse-only, and some for any edits. There is one (Wikidata) which uses a modified version of it. As such, assigning this group to anyone has all the same unresolved problems of the global abusefilter, except without any policies surrounding its use. I don't think that is a healthy situation to find ourselves in. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    You know this isn't for GAF, right? It's to have local abusefilter on all wikis (through a global group, mind you). πr2 (t • c) 17:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    I know, but no matter what he says he will do with it, there is the potential to be using these rights on all wikis, thus presenting the same problems as the global abusefilter. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the intention is simply to be able to view private filters then a special global group can be created for this purpose. Ruslik (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Of course that's fine with me, if people really think that there's a difference between saying that I never will do something with a flag and actually removing those rights. For the sake of clarity, if this group can't be assigned to anyone as is, it would IMHO be better to remove its editing rights and reuse it rather than creating a new one. Werdna has not been involved in (削除) LQT (削除ここまで) AF development for years so he doesn't need them any longer anyway (if he ever did). --Nemo 21:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    What has LQT development to do with abusefilter? o_O Snowolf How can I help? 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, typo. (It's the same pattern. ;-) ) --Nemo 19:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment At this point of time I think that we should be thinking through our approach and determining the path forward, prior to assigning people rights, and making decisions on the run. It is always harder to take away the rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    Is it? I'll just follow the most restrictive request here for returning the flag, or it can be temporary, etc. --Nemo 19:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment The abuse filter editors page doesn't have much about how and when this right should be assigned. πr2 (t • c) 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Now Ruslik has created a global group Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/Abuse_filter_helper specifically for this purpose. As of writing, there are no users in this group. πr2 (t • c) 18:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment As Nemo stated, there is not so much admins familiar with AF, so if AF is supposed to be useful, it has to be used. Which will, if it will be maintained. Which will, if there will be maintainers. I relatively often happen to be asked by various admins from various projects to help with AF and also faced the situation when needed to have such access to be even able to help. Thus I support the creation of such group as very helpful one.
    — Danny B. 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment - For the record, the WMF has no objection to this group being subsumed by the community. We weren't doing much with it. :-) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Support granting either "Abuse filter editor" or "Abuse_filter_helper" to User:Nemo_bis. He won't abuse it, and he will be able to help fixing abusefilters more easily. πr2 (t • c) 18:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    Done Since there has been no objections, I assigned Nemo to the "Abuse_filter_helper" group. Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you all for the trust! Now everyone is entitled to say that I'm bound to answer requests for AbuseFilter help I suppose. ;-) --Nemo 18:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Global API High Limit Requestor for Legobot

Status: Done

Hi everyone, I have written a bot that will use category information from any Wikipedia and use it to add relevant properties to Wikidata items. You can see examples at d:User talk:Legobot/properties.js. Since it fetches info from the API, it would benefit from having 'apihighlimits' to make bigger requests, meaning it can go faster. For example, Jon Harald Søby requested ~130k items that need editing from svwiki. My bot will not make any edits on target sites, just fetch data from them.

The API High Limit Requestor group is better than a global bot since it only gives the permission I need, and no wikis are opted out. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Support as the one who suggested adding the bot to this group. While this group was created for FacebookBot to fetch data from Wikipedia pages to put on Facebook, and hasn't been used for anything else, this group has great potential use for many Wikidata bots. The only real difference between Legobot's usecase and the FacebookBot usecase is that Legobot fetches data for a Wikimedia project instead of a third-party site. There is very little documentation about the group now, but that's something we could create if this case gives precendce for it (and I see no reason why it shouldn't). Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Support Support I had no idea this existed, but yes this would be quite useful. --Rs chen 7754 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Support Support A High API limit would make running bots more efficient. Techman224 Talk 19:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done per arguments above. --თოგო (D) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /