Steward requests/Global permissions/2013-03

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for Kattegatt

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

I've been user since january 2010. I've been a rollbacker on Swedish Wikipedia since August 30, 2012 and there i have done about 8 920 edits. I'm also active at Wikiquote and Wikivoyage sometimes, and sometimes i restore edits at Norwegian Wikipedia. I would really like to have the global rollback feature, so i can revert vandalism. Sorry for my english. Cheers, Kattegatt (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  •   Oppose You have only edited a small number of wikis (ca. 12), that is not quite as global as needed for Global Rollback. Please become active in cross-wiki vandal fighting first. You can also revert vandalism without GR. --MF-W 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment I recommend that you install global Twinkle to revert vandals. You can join the SWMT to help revert vandalism across many wikis. πr2 (t • c) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    Analysis of luxo:Kattegatt: I only see reverts on Scandinavian-languaged projects. In fact, I only see reverts of vandalism on the Norwegian (Bokmål) and Swedish Wikipedias. This is not enough cross-wiki experience to see if someone is trusted enough reverting vandalism in languages the don't know, foreign alphabets, cross-wiki vandals, etc. I recommend you install Twinkle as I said above. πr2 (t • c) 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment rather early yet to me. The list of wikis you have edited is rather short. --Herby talk thyme 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too soon to request, per above. --Rschen7754 20:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, more experience across multiple languages and projects is needed for this flag. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Maybe several weeks later... Not now. –BruTe talk 22:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above.--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. --Simeondahl (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per MF-Warburg. You have edited only 13 wikis, only 7 of which where you have more than 5 edits. The local block on your home wiki is also disqualifying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Well, the user still disagrees with the block, claiming the "sock" was just a "test". The length was shortened from 1 week to 3 days. However, I agree that this is worrying for a GR candidate. πr2 (t • c) 23:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Has been blocked on homewiki (svwiki/Swedish Wikipedia) for 3 days with the reason "trolleri". Unblock request. πr2 (t • c) 23:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too few crosswiki experience a×pdeHello! 07:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  •   Not promoted, see comments above. Regards, --Bencmq (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Global rollback for Makecat

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

Hello, I am here to apply for global rollback rights again after failed three months ago. First, I must apologize for some childish behaviours at the end of last year, and after that I resigned on both wikis where I am an administrator. If you can forgive me for that, please see my activity in SWMT. According to luxo's tool, I have made 350+ reverts in recent months, plus nominating many pages for speedy deletion. If this time I fails again, I will keep active in SWMT and try it later. Thank you. --Makecat 07:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  •   Oppose globally you've put in a lot of work and are knowledgeable, but I can't support someone who was blocked on their home wiki for almost all of January 2013. [1] --Rschen7754 07:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose it isn't specifically about the childishness, it is the breach of trust, that takes a long time to re-earn — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rschen7754, and the fact that that mishap with global IP block exemption and vandalism is far too recent for comfort.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment, It's ridiculous that a vandal want to be a global rollbacker, hahaha! --Oihfoisd (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC) LTA comment struck.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • After reading your comments (except the one above), I decided to withdraw this request. --Makecat 03:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Withdrawn. Mathonius (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for DreaMQ

I live in Mainland China and I need VPN to get around the GFW. HTTPS seems very unstable these days. I bought a VPS ( which is in a blocked network and set up a VPN server. I want to be exempted in the block, thanksǃ--DreaMQ (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections. Ruslik (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Smuconlaw

I tried to edit Wikidata, but received the following error message:

  • Your IP address has been blocked on all Wikimedia wikis. The block was made by [// Shizhao] ( The reason given is [[m:NOP|Open proxy]]. * Start of block: 01:22, 18 June 2012 * Expiry of block: 01:22, 18 June 2013 You can contact [// Shizhao] to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid e-mail address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is Please include all above details in any queries you make. You may appeal this block at Steward requests/Global.

It appears I'm being affected by a block. I've been editing Wikipedia since January 2010. Smuconlaw (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your internet connection must have switched to go through an ISP server that's not configured properly. I see you made edits on March 2nd. Techman224Talk 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Or a ISP caching server that's being picked up as a proxy. Techman224Talk 20:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what the technical reason is, but the issue seems to happen transiently. I made this edit from the office. I think the error message popped up when I was at home and connecting to the Internet through my personal ISP. — Smuconlaw (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Given the fact that you already have an exempt on two large projects (enwp, commons) and that you are an established user:   Done. Trijnsteltalk 22:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Makecat-bot

My bot doesn't need global IP block exempt because it's currently running on Wikimedia Labs. Please remove it. --Makecat 09:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 09:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Jk9357

<Hey wanted to request an unblock. I'm using the german gigabit server of and my IP is blocked from editing.>, thanks, --Jk9357 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please post the exact block message you get? Trijnsteltalk 21:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
No response after a month. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Huangjinghai

Sometimes I need to edit via anonymous proxies. I live in China, because of the Great Firewall, it's hard to access some pages directly. Already get IPBE right on zh.wp. --Huangjinghai (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What about HTTPS access? --Makecat 14:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
HTTPS -- not stable;--Huangjinghai (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that we should be granting this exemption. I have some specific concerns and these are noted on the steward's wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  Not done The requesting user didn't answer for more than one month, closing then. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for josheee12

I use a VPN when on public networks and would like to be exempted from the ban. VPS6 uses this block and consequently, a lot of VPNs are most likely in this block.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshdevel12 (talk)

We will not be granting an IP exemption for a request for another account. The request should come from the account for which the exemption is being sought. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I cannot login; I went to IRC and had the ban temporarily lifted and was unable to reset my password, as I was still getting errors about being blocked. — joshdevel12
You said nothing about it in IRC at the time. I have tripped enWP to send the password. Please use that to login to this wiki (not enWP). — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
No response after a month. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Sozi

Hello, I have to use an anonimyzer in other contextes than WP in the next future. To avoid browser juggling, I make this request for IP block exemption, best regards, --Sozi (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you been already affected by a global block? Ruslik (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know it exactly, but when I tried it on last Thursday or Fryday, my de-Account was blocked with a link to an Italian user. I think that this was a global block. But I reflected whether the whole action is useful to me and asked at the de-WP for an ip-block-exempt, where I was linked to this page. Best regards, -- Sozi (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, it depends on whether the already implemented decision by the local administration - which seems to have been taken after the encounter you describe - is sufficient to empower you to edit as you desire. If so, there would be no need to grant a global exception on top of a working local solution.
On the other hand, if we are indeed talking the specific anonimyzer mentioned by the user in the post you link as the one guiding you to Meta, I recommend looking at our latest comparable de.wp-specific case in evaluating this request. Regards, --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Why should the user only be unblocked on dewiki if it's a global block? πr2 (t • c) 19:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Translation request. Regards, -- Sozi (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on the elaboration of his request Sozi linked above I think - see my reply - there is a solid rational to grant the request and recommend to go ahead, best --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Benoit85

Hey, my server is blocked by a global IP Ban with the reason: "Cross-wiki spam: spambot: continued through one of the (Germany Nuremberg Hetzner Online Ag)." can you please unblock my ip adress its a proxy server for my normal useraccount at, thanks, --Benoit85 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Benoit85, you do not have a SUL account so it's not possible to give you any global flag. You need to create your SUL account (which I strongly suggest you do anyway), or you may choose to ask for IP block exempt on German Wikipedia from your local administrators, which also solves the problem. --Bencmq (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
No further action has been taken. This can be readdressed if the contributor gets a universal account. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional global rights

Abusefilter for Addshore

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  •   Support temporary access. It seems to me the best solution to fix the interwiki bot problem. Regards, Vogone talk 00:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure this is a good idea. You should absolutely not set up abuse filters on the major wikis, and I'm not sure how local admins would react to you setting up abuse filters on their wikis. Many do not enjoy interference even in gs-enabled wikis, let alone outside of them. Snowolf How can I help? 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, there are two Abusefilter global groups (Abusefilter editor, Abusefilter helper). Which one would you prefer? Also, should we just wait for global AbuseFilters? πr2 (t • c) 00:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Abusefilter-helper, recently created for a special request, has no rights to edit abusefilters, only to view them. --MF-W 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      Ah, true. I still don't see the point in creating 200 filters for this. Do we need to disable them when all the iw-bots stop operating? πr2 (t • c) 00:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Probably yes. I also think it's a bit overdone and too much effort. Bot owners should quickly adapt to the new situation or get their bots stopped, imho. --MF-W 00:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I concur with Snowolf. Different wikis have varying policies on their abuse filters.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The alternative is to request a lot of blocks on bots, which I am totally for if it is the way it must be done! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a better option IMO. Using the abuse filter would simply add an unnecessary additional step in the edit-saving process -FASTILY (TALK) 00:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Snowolf. Notify the operators, and lock if they don't stop the bots. πr2 (t • c) 00:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I withdraw. I have just smashed together a much better solution scanning the irc rc feed --·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not done per user request (withdrawn).—Teles «Talk to me ˱@ L C S˲» 01:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)