Steward requests/Global permissions/2012-09

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for Shujenchang

Hi. I am an active member of SWMT. I'm always on the IRC channel #cvn-sw and #cvn-newpages monitoring small wikis. I almost do anti-vandalism work everyday on small wikis (such us rollback vandalism and csd spams or no-meaningful pages). Besides that, I'm also local patroller and roll-backer on Chinese Wikipedia, and local patroller on Commons. I think I have enough experience. I want to apply for the global rollback permission to make my antivandalism work on small wikis more convenient. Thanks. --Shujenchang (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support User is trusted and friendly. Cross-wiki edits is lacking a little, but overall is quite satisfied by this user. --Hydriz (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A lot of his edits shows, at least to me, that he's not careful. How can you be so sure about what you don't understand? It's good that you noticed some of them but could you be careful? Yes plus that xwiki contribution is lacking. Mostly userpage creation. Lastly this is a straight no to me. --Bencmq (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment: I think sometimes it is necessary to judge by intuitive thinking on some wikis with unknown language. Sometimes I do make mistakes, and then I will realize them and improve my ability of judging by intuition. I believe I will have less and less mistakes by doing more global works.--Shujenchang (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
      • You have to have the mindset "when in doubt, don't tag/revert". You should also self-revert your own mistakes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I'll pay more attention about it, thanks for your advise. --Shujenchang (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
          • After you've done that for a few more weeks, come request it again. Not now, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Well, I see. So I cancel my request now, and I'll try to be more careful in my future work and request again when I feel better. --Shujenchang (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Ltdccba (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Bencmq.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per both the above --Herby talk thyme 17:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  Not done self-withdrawn. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Global sysop for RonaldB

I'm currently working on a major overhaul of the system, reporting open proxy edits, here and on a dozen other wikis. The new system will supervise all (750+) wikis and will include IPv6 capabilities. It will also provide links to block ranges (if appropriate), which in particular for IPv6 tunnels will become extremely important in the near future. Other functionalities (e.g. cross-wiki edit detection) may be added at a later stage.

Extensive testing is being done, currently aggregating all results on a single reporting page. For full testing and - at a later stage - intelligence on cross-wiki (and other) abuses, I request global sysop permission.

  •   Oppose Please use the Beta cluster for testing. Global sysops cannot globally block, which is what, in most cases, should be done for proxies. Nor can they block on all wikis, especially the large important ones where proxies are most often abused on.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jasper Deng above. Some projects have been created specially for this kind of tests. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • While I fully trust RonaldB, I don't think these are the correct tools for testing and blocking open proxies. Trijnsteltalk 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I guess there is some misunderstanding. The intend is NOT to block open proxies and alike, but just to see wether the block links to other wikis than nl:wp which the test page are providing are correct in the live situation (short term, temporary permission would suffice) and to view removed pages in order to get a feel how to improve the future cross-wiki abuse feature. That's all. - RonaldB (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    Special:Block works on all wikis regardless of language. fr:Special:Block, it:Special:Block, etc. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    I know and that's not the issue.
    The reason why I want to test a more sophisitcated mechanism can be found here. You may find with the whois tools that this one is an IP in a /32 or /40 range of Easynet. But actually it is a /48 subnet. So if an admin wants to block the range he/she has to figure out what the /48 range is, that is encapsulating the full /128 address. The current link "blokkeer/48" will do that for him automatically. This is not a trivial task for a human being, so he may decide in this example, to simply block either the /32 or /40, causing possibly collateral damage.
    This kind of examples are still rather rare and the granularity of the whois information varies as I have observed. In this particular case RIPE provides the "good" granularity (I don't know/care about clones such as domaintools), but that's by far not a guarantee and I've seen all variations in the mean time.
    Having said that, my position is simple. If I can't test this functionality from beginning to end, where end is looking at the variable information in the blocking screen, I won't include the feature in the live version. - RonaldB (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    As I said, you can test it on the Beta cluster; I wouldn't advocate testing on the production cluster.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    Ronald, you should know that global sysops don't have full global sysop rights. Only on a selected group of projects, see here. Trijnsteltalk 20:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • At this point of time it is not explicitly clear why global sysop is required, is it so you get access to the right Search deleted pages (browsearchive)? May you can speak to the rights that are needed for the task. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
To make it clear, the purpose is twofold:
  • View the blocking screen (fields that can be filled in), to check the proper result of an automatically generated url, which includes parameters to fill these fields with a default value (which imho in particular is importantent for languages that convert ascii url's to something else).
  • At a later stage to view deleted pages (in order to see how useful the intende cross-wiki functionality is or could be).
But I think the purpose is poorly understood, so it seems me better to withdraw the request. - RonaldB (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I think you should be using the API, so why do you need direct access to the blocking interface when the API has fixed fields? However, I do understand your need for viewdeleted, but still don't believe this permission matches your need. If you need truly global access somewhere, the Beta cluster is there for you. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Outside remit of the scope for GS. fr33kman 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • &  I'm afraid I do not think this request falls within the intent and scope of the global sysop policy as it currently stands. Snowolf How can I help? 05:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  •   Not done withdrawn by applicant — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for TariButtar

I don't know if the format is correct but wanna request the right that I must not be affected by the global IP block as I recently faced. I'm an experienced user of the and knows the dos and don'ts quite well. So, not to worry about any vandal or unusual activity from me misusing the right. Please check my contributions on the here. --tari buttar (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide us with the block message, (if you prefer feel free to use email) Regards. Bencmq (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
See here - I confirm that his IP is globally blocked. -Barras talk 15:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Barras! Now, stewards, please go ahead. --tari buttar (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  Done Ruslik (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot dear. For how much time, I've granted this? --tari buttar (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Drajay1976

I contribute to Malayalam Wiipdiedia and Wikimedia Commons. Occassionally I add images to other wikipedias. I use an "Idea 3G" internet connection. I am told that the network provider gives "dynamic IP address" to the users. So, I dont think this problem will go away. In the circumstances, I wish to get a global IP block exemption. thanks, --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Yp8080123

This user has been affected by a gblock on spambot that'll expire in one month. Requesting temporary gblock exempt on their behalf. Thanks, --Bencmq (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. -Barras talk 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Tommyang

As a PRC editor I often need to use VPNs to bypass the GFW. I mainly contribute to zhwiki and has been a member of OTRS and rollbacker on zhwiki for a while. I'd like to request a exempt, thanks. --Tommyang (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please post one of the block messages you get/got? Trijnsteltalk 15:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  Request withdrawn I was getting too many block messages recently and got confused... Some of my VPNs were globally soft blocked before. This time it's hard blocked on enwiki. I mistakenly thought it was a global block. Re-requested on enwiki. --Tommyang (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.   Not done then. Trijnsteltalk 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)