Steward requests/Global permissions/2013-05

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for The Illusive Man

• Global user: The Illusive Man (edits ^(alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA )

Global rollback for Pratyya Ghosh

• Global user: Pratyya Ghosh (edits ^(alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA )

Global rollback for CoveyHill

• Global user: CoveyHill (edits ^(alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA )

Global rollback for Addihockey10

Requesting restoration of global rights after non-controversial removal. Addihockey10 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No objections, but why did you request yourself to be locked? --MF-W 23:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I requested to be locked because I knew I was going to be inactive for an extended period of time and I wished to prevent any possibility of my account being compromised during the duration of my inactivity. --Addihockey10 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmhm, I don't think that's a reasonable reason to request a lock (or get one done..) as locks are actually reserved to abusive users. --MF-W 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Support - I don't think this discussion is necessary given that he was previously approved for this right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Comment From what I've seen I have no objection either, but I may not get the whole scene... -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Support --cyrfaw (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• & last reverts are from 6 months ago, please become active enough to justify the request before requesting hats. The user does not fulfill the policy requirement that "users must be demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities" as his last significant activity in that field is from 6 months ago. As I point out regularly in other places, after an extended leave, the first thought of a returning user shouldn't be asking for hats. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Basically, I agree with Snowolf but I don't understand why the right was even removed either. As far as I see, there is no inactivity policy for GR and the right has only to be removed after abuse, which did not seem to have happened in this case. Regards, Vogone talk 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  The account was locked, and global rights are always removed from locked accounts given locks only take place for serious abuse or other major problem. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  True, but this case appears to be different. The locking steward hasn't removed the permissions for a long time and they weren't at all until billinghurst did it shortly before the user reappeared. A comment by DerHexer here would be surely helpful, though. Greetings, Vogone talk 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I think I mentioned that he still had GR (on IRC), and Billinghurst removed it. I may have even asked for removal... I don't remember. I agree (in hindsight) that the rights probably shouldn't have been removed, but usually rights are removed from locked accounts. Locked users can't abuse global rights, but they might if/when they're unlocked (most locks are for major problems or abuse). PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  Locked is meant to be locked; permanent; it is neither a frivolous tool nor action. Why would we leave rights attached to a locked account? We cannot do 'friends' deals or exceptions because someone is nice. It is illogical to expect otherwise. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  GR is to be removed after an account has abused his access, not after an account was locked temporarily per request. I see no section which says "locked users cannot hold GR access". Removing it was in fact against the policy as no abuse happened. No policy against account locking after request exists either. And even if the lock was inappropriate the right solution would have been to remove it, not to remove permissions from the account. Regards, Vogone talk 05:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  What utter balderdash. Point 1) re Global locks; supported by Locked global account ... please read the criteria for global locks; and it has been clear from stewards operating practice that self-requested global locks are not desired and not considered to be temporary. Point 2) There is zero, absolutely zero, evidence on meta to show that this was a temporary lock — nothing on the user's talk page, nothing on their user page, and nothing on the lock entry. To the point that the user has neither documented their request; presumably it has been done via IRC request, something that would seem to be pretty poor practice, especially in hindsight. Similarly there is no evidence for any judgement on whether the lock was appropriate or not. Point 3) Global rollback and this permissions page is silent on the removal of rights, however, Steward handbook#Removal of access gives direction; and requesting a lock would clearly be a removal of access under the evidence presented. Re removal there is no policy to support your claim that we can even remove global rollback rights for abuse. In fact if you read the policy on global rollback, it would appear that it is a steward's decision; though clearly the practice is that a proposal is put before the community. So please stop the nit-picking and deal with the matter in hand. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  I am still only asking for a reason why the rights were removed, nothing more. 1) Yes, and the criteria wasn't met in this case. But how does it justify a user right removal, rather than an unlock? 2) I agree that an IRC request in this case was poor practice, but the lock comment is clear: "per request". That no abuse happened can be proved 1. by asking the locking steward and 2. by browsing the logs. I did both and came to this result. 3) Okay, removal is only defined for GS, not for GR, but there is still the possibility to use common sense. And I don't think "locked account" is a valid reason for removal of rights. As far as I see, Addihockey10 was not even notified of this removal. Furthermore, Steward handbook#Removal of access does not lead me to the outcome that "requesting a lock would clearly be a removal of [GR] access". I was just wondering because of the right removal and liked to hear a reason. My intention is not to annoy you. Regards, Vogone talk 16:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  It was stated by Snowolf in the first comment that it is stewards' practice to remove rights from locked accounts. To the rest, that commentary no longer belongs here, so if you want to have that conversation please take it to my talk page. I added the facts in my initial response, and we all need to remove extraneous debate from an approval process. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  IIRC we asked DerHexer (the locking steward) for an explanation, but he couldn't remember it anymore + had no logs etc. Trijnstel _talk 15:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Support He has been quite active again at cvn-sw, so I see no reason to not hand it back. — ΛΧΣ ²¹ 21:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Support, because of the fact that the user right removal seems ill-considered to me. No abuse happened and no inactivity policy for GR exists. The lock was a plain user request. Regards, Vogone talk 21:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Support Why is another full request necessary? He hasn't abused the tool and there's no inactivity policy for GR. Defender (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Comment Perhaps the relevant policies should explicitly mention cases like this, where the user resigns/retires or is locked. Maybe have a reduced voting period or automatic restoration of rights?PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  The first option seems rather pointless to me as 4 days aren't really reducible. I'm not sure about the second one as I don't see why the right should be even removed from a locked account like Addihockey10's was. Vogone talk 16:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Support Why not? -FASTILY 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Global rollback for Hahc21

I'd like to request the global rollback permission. I've been an SWMTer for some time and I've been using global twinkle ever since, but sometimes, due to the limitations of the tool, I've been unable to timely respond to vandalism on some wikis. Global rollback will improve my response time when reverting edits by avoiding annoying captchas or abuse filters, as well as giving me additional tools to fight vandalism. — ΛΧΣ ²¹ 16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, from what I have seen, his global edits/reverts and the crossactivity are good and sufficient enough for GR. Furthermore, the user is globally trusted so this is a valid request within the GR scope. Vogone talk 16:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• (削除) {{neutral}} (削除ここまで) (vote striked-through & voted oppose now, see below) GR might be useful for you, but I'm not fully convinced due to 2 failing RfAs on the English Wikipedia (1 and 2). Could you explain please? Trijnstel _talk 16:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Support I would wish for more experience, but I'd have no problems. @Trijnstel: those RfAs have little to do with global rollback. The English Wikipedia sets very high standards in their RfAs and people oppose for all sorts of reasons. In this case, the oppose reasons were hardly because of his experience in counter-vandalism activity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Support per his x-wiki activity. --Alan ^(talk) 17:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose — Activity is fairly recent, and I'm strongly concerned by the hat-collecting. Over this last half year, Hahc21 has requested a large amount of rights, which I have tried to list here, and most of the activity seems to focus on obtaining these rights:

This sums up to a total of 18 rights requests, all of which were made in 2013. In the 142 days we have had so far this year, it makes an average of one right request every 8 days. Most of these right requests were preceded by an increased activity, declining afterwards. See for example, his deletion log on eswikivoyage: Of his 27 deletions, 25 are within 24 hours of the successful closure of his RfA.

On top, Hahc has also requested access to OTRS and became a member of the Grants committee, status about which he bragged on eswiki's mailing list.

Aside from hat-collecting concerns, I am surprised to see him act as a bureaucrat, even though he isn't, closing a vote he himself is involved in.

I would recomend the user not to see rights as an objective, but as a tool. Because of the concerns I've mentioned, I am unsure whether he will continue contributing long-term whilst using the GR flag, and I would like to see a bit more than a few days' activity before supporting. Sa vh ^ñ 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

fj:User_talk:Hahc21 is also interesting. Request rollback on a small wiki where admins can't grant it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Pfeew... 18 right requests in a half year are indeed much. Although, the fjwiki thing does not seem like a right request to me as Hahc21 seems to know that no rollback group exists there. Vogone talk 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I couldn't find the request itself either (just the admin's response), so I think it's fine. Closing the RfA on fjwiki after a week isn't bad, because often users with no comments/votes after a week just leave requests on SRP. This is no worse. There weren't any opposes or negative comments... PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And unbelievable that user (Tucoxn) got admin rights for 6 months instead of the usual 3 months for new admins without local votes. Trijnstel _talk 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is neither Hahc21's nor Tucoxn's fault. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

True, but it did happen. ;) Trijnstel _talk 20:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Savh: BTW, you even missed his last RfA on enwiki, so that'll make 19... Trijnstel _talk 18:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• • 18 requests is abnormal, but it alone is not indicative of hat-collection, because I feel Hahc21 has always had the best intentions when requesting rights. What distinguishes him from a hat-collector is that he does not request these rights simply because of their status. My support remains a weak one because of his rather low experience with SWMT.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Support per AGF. His reverts are good so far and I do not see how GR is a big deal.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose, fully convinced by the points brought up by Savh. Trijnstel _talk 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• & per the concerns brought up by Savh and Trijnstel. I am particularly not happy about the last enwiki RfA, where the candidate started writing his RfA before his restrictions were removed even, and merely published the day after or so. The restrictions were in admin-work related areas (Non Admin Closures) and this is troubling to me obviously. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose per Savh; not much I can say that he hasn't said already. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• & ; thanks to Savh for putting the list together. While of course not every unsuccessful candidature should be held before someone all the time, there is a bit high number of them here... Additionally I took a look at some cw contributions randomly and think that you still need more experience in crosswiki vandal-fighting, e.g. I understand none of the reverts on sowiki and here there was a revert to a revision which included a non-existing infobox template. --MF-W 21:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• I withdraw this request. I'd prefer to stay using Twinkle than going through this, thanks. — ΛΧΣ ²¹ 01:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Closed as Not done per user request.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{@ L C S} ˲» 02:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Global rollback for Leitoxx

Revierto vandalism en es.Wikipedia con el flag de reversor y pt.Wikipedia con AVI. Mi pedido del flag global rollback es porque se me haría más fácil el trabajo a la hora de revertir en diferentes wikis. Actualmente tengo el flag de reversor en es.Wikipedia.

• You have quite little cross-wiki experience, so I would say no for global rollback. But maybe User:Snowolf/How to globally TWINKLE would be something for you. Regards, Vogone talk 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Can you, please, explain why you are blocked on Commons and why all these recent requests for user rights?—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{@ L C S} ˲» 14:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  Leitoxx was also blocked 2 times on eswiki but granted rollback afterwards. But I don't think this is that relevant for this request as he is not that active globally, anyway. Vogone talk 14:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Oppose SWMT experience is usually required for this right, so I have to oppose per Vogone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose. Cross-wiki hat collector. See this. LlamaAl (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose No need for the gr bit. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose per above. --Rs chen 7754 19:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose per Jasper Deng--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose Concerns with limited x-wiki experience and the block on Commons for vandalism. Defender (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Estimado Leitoxx, me parece obvio que no entiendes el objetivo de este permiso, y que aún no estás en condiciones para recibirlo. Te recomiendo que retires esta solicitud. Un saludo, Sa vh ^ñ 19:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Support --cyrfaw (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose Sinceramente, no acabo de comprender la obsesión por los permisos, porque desde luego no he visto ni un solo motivo que me haga votar a favor. Alan ^(talk) 20:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done There is clearly no consensus to add this user in the GR group. If you're really wanting to fight against vandalism and spam globally, you are welcome to join the SWMT team. But this status is clearly not needed to start helping, believe me... Also feel free to contact me if needed. Regards, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 21:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a small note: early closures are against meta policy. Vogone talk 21:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

See here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

*facepalm* Vogone talk 21:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for ks.magi

• Global user: ks.magi (edits ^(alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA )

Global IP block exempt for Samosoboi

• Global user: Samosoboi (edits ^(alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA )

Global IP block exempt for Darkjojo

• Global user: Darkjojo (edits ^(alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA )

Requests for other global permissions

Abuse_filter_helper for Nemo bis

• Global user: Nemo bis (edits ^(alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA )
• Discussion: sv:Användardiskussion:Nemo bis