Open main menu

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for LlamaAl

The following request is closed.

Hello. I have been an active member of SWMT for some weeks and, while I have used Twinkle with success, I think global rollback rights would be very useful for me and would make my work a lot easier. I have been granted the rollback permission in seven wikis, so I really know how to use it well. Thanks in advance, LlamaAl (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  •   Support I've seen him around #cvn-* and he seems like he could use it. --Rschen7754 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Analyzing your work, I see a quite limited cross-activity for now, although your reverts seem to be okay. So please keep your work up but it might be a bit to early for GR, in my opinion. Vogone talk 04:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, since I joined SWMT, I have performed at least one anti-spam or countervandalism action in more than 100 wikis. I think that's sufficient for GR. LlamaAl (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support. I don't see why not. Lukas²³ 20:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Don't know this user very well, but don't have (strong) objections either. Trijnsteltalk 18:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment Usually we close GR requests after 5 days, but since only 3 people (4 with me) commented here I decided to extend it for a few days. Trijnsteltalk 18:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Sure, I've seen them around in -sw and they have quite a bit of experience. Can't find anything wrong with their reverts, either. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Don't know this user very well. Happy to give him the chance. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support I've seen this user very active on Spanish small wikis and his help was usefull. --Alan (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support - If it can help him, then why not give it? :) --Simeondahl (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support --Glaisher (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  Granted rollback flag per consensus. --Bencmq (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for participating. LlamaAl (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Global rollback for Florence

The following request is closed.
  • &  It is customary to provide a nomination statement to explain why you feel you should be entrusted with the permissions you request, especially given you seem to have no experience in crosswiki countervandalism. I see a lot of edits on a lot of wikis, but all of them being related to your bot's userpage. Even on the wikis where you have 10+ edits, they seem to be related to your userpages and not countervandalism contributions for example on incubatorwiki. With no nomination statement, no countervandalism activity on luxo that I can see, I have to oppose this request. Please consider joining the SWMT on their irc channels #cvn-sw and #cvn-newpages to help out, and once you obtain more experience and have an actual need for it, request this permission. Consider using User:Snowolf/How to globally TWINKLE instead. I also add that this edit on frwiki from 6 weeks ago is incredibly confusing to me. Snowolf How can I help? 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Snowolf. --Rschen7754 21:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Snowolf. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Limited x-wiki counter vandalism experience -FASTILY 05:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Snowolf. --Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you . i Back Florence (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  •   Oppose After looking at your crosswiki activity and crosswiki-ness I have to agree with the people above. --Wiki13 talk 10:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can't find any cross-wiki anti-vandalism edits. --Glaisher [talk] 10:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume that the request was withdrawn by the comment from 10:23, 17 July. --MF-W 00:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Global rollback for Razorflame

I've had this bit in the past, and resigned it when I was going to be gone for an extended period of time. I am now back and would like to request the bit again, as I was very active in crosswiki-reverting when I was active and will remain so :) Thanks, Razorflame 04:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Usually people resume activity for a while before requesting rights back... --Rschen7754 05:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Now   Oppose due to response to Snowolf. --Rschen7754 01:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • &  According to pathos' tool, it would seem that your last significant activity in this field was in 2010. As such, this gets a fairly strong oppose from me. First one should resume activity, then they should ask for permissions and userrights. If my understanding of the situation regarding when you were last active is incorrect, please feel free to rectify it. Snowolf How can I help? 09:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Why oppose when activity has already begun, and I've been incredibly active cross-wiki in the past? Surely the past edits help in this, no? I've been active in the SWMT for two years, as well as the past two days, and would benefit greatly from having the tool back again. Plus, doesn't having the tool in the past also help my cause? Razorflame 01:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Because it hadn't really begun when I commented here and because I like to see a little bit more activity than two days' worth. While you might still have kept your GR tools had you not voluntarily resigned, I still believe I should look at a new request on its own merits: just like any other request, the first thing I evaluate in deciding whether I will support or not is demonstrated need for the tools, in the form of a sustained activity in reverting cross-wiki over a period of time. In your case, a scroll thru luxo shows one day's worth of reverts, and about two days in tagging pages for deletion. That is most certainly not enough in my book. While I do not believe that GR is a big deal, I still would like to see the policy requirement of "make heavy use of revert on many wikis" satisfied, and I do not think it is. Snowolf How can I help? 07:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    I also add that the user's bizarre statements on this very request do not inspire confidence. That one doesn't agree with another user is not uncommon, and certainly normal, but this user chose to make their disapproval known by labelling a fellow Wikimedian's opinion as "merit-less", which is hardly in the spirit of the fourth pillar. Snowolf How can I help? 08:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. He resigned voluntarily, and has been trusted with various rights in the past. I believe that he will put this to good use. After all, rollback is hardly a big deal. And he probably never would have lost his rights if he hadn't resigned them, considering we have inactive GRs. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. First of all, Razorflame is obviously still trusted to be able to revert on all wikis - nobody here has given any evidence to the contrary, and I can't find any myself. This isn't some group where the policies change significantly. In fact, the policy page at gr is almost identical now to what it was in 2010, when the user was last very active. Obviously there hasn't been a change in policy which would cause an issue for someone returning after spending a couple of years off of Wikimedia.

Secondly, there is no inactivity policy for gr. Razorflame had the tool removed, twice, on his own request. This was done (presumably) because the user has a mature understanding of advanced permissions, and doesn't keep them as trophies. If he had kept the bit like so many inactive global rollbackers do, this wouldn't be a problem - it wouldn't have been removed. By his own admission, he is going to start being active in the field again and has been. I see no reason to make him wait to use a group of rights which he is obviously trusted enough to use. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  •   Support, if he says he's going to be active again, he will do so. - Hoo man (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Snowolf and the reply to Snowolf. I would be willing to support in the future once you show that you still can be trusted to hold this right (it's been a long time since you last had it).--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    My comment addressed this - what has changed that would make him any less trusted to hold the right? Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Well, first of all, he ran four years ago, when the standards were a lot lower: Steward requests/Global/2009-03#Global rollback for Razorflame Secondly, his original response to Snowolf was completely rude, which is definitely not how we want someone with GR to respond when their rollbacks are questioned on their talk page. --Rschen7754 02:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Saying that I respond in that manner every single time I respond to something like that is like saying I have a hot-headed temperment, both of which are not true. Nothing has changed since the last time I had GR, and I honestly don't know why the heck people are making such a big deal. Honestly, with this kind of treatment, I honestly should've not resigned my GR rights if I knew that this would happen when I ask for them back. Razorflame 02:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    That may be true, but seeing that sort of comment doesn't inspire me to support this request. --Rschen7754 02:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    So the standards were lower.... are you saying that his reverts were of a similarly low quality? Do you have any evidence from his past or current contributions that he can't handle the bit? His reply to Snowolf was rude, true, but everyone has off replies sometimes, and I hardly think that one poorly thought out response would warrant an opposing vote by itself. My opinion, of course - but if you and others are going to argue any difference between now and then for using gr, please provide more than general references to the possibility of differences, or the lower standards of the past. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Well, a lot fewer people voted on that request, and Wikimedia has changed an awful lot in the last few years, which concerns me when I see a request like this where the candidate has not demonstrated a familiarity with those changes. --Rschen7754 02:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Is everyone supposed to know everything that has happened in the past three years? I mean, do you honestly expect me to know about the changes when they don't even apply in this instance? The only thing that applies is the Global Rollback policy, and I've already read that. It hasn't changed at ALL since the last time I looked at it, and everything on there points to what I've already provided: Heavy crosswiki vandalism stomping activity. It also states that you should be active within the SWMT, of which I am, so therefore, I honestly see no reason why there should even be any opposition to my request. Nothing has been produced with which can be said that I don't know what I'm doing with the tool through bad reverts or anything of the sort. In fact, I don't see any reason why there should even be any opposition to this request, especially for how someone responds to another person here. That's the last thing that one should even be looking at for this sort of request. In fact, just opposing because of how a user interacts with another user on this site is like saying you have a grudge against said user. Please provide proof where I don't know what I'm doing with this tool and I will happily accept your oppose. Until then, I cannot accept your opposition to my request as it has no merit. Thanks, Razorflame 03:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    Your replies here are giving me concerns about your maturity, which is requisite for this right. Snowolf's point is very valid in my opinion - and the community can oppose for any reason you can be deemed untrustworthy for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see how my above comment could be concerning to you. All I asked for was evidence that points to me abusing the tool in the past. Razorflame 03:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    They are rather combative and not becoming of what I expect from a candidate for this right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • &  for now. --MF-W 12:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Combative, rude. Snowolf's point was entirely valid, and the responses do indeed lead to a lack of trust, at least of maturity. Courcelles 13:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The GR policy also says that a user needs to be trusted to get this right. And I don't feel I can trust you interacting with all the small communities while you are failing to do this with users commenting on your own GR request. Vogone talk 14:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to my recent behavior, I find myself unfit for the global rollback bit at this point in time, and as such, I am withdrawing my request at this point in time. Thank you, Razorflame 21:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Marked as   Request withdrawn by user request. Snowolf How can I help? 10:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Global rollback for Veronidae

Hi, I'm an editor at multiple Wiki, which is why this permission request, additionally I would like to help combat vandalism and assist in the maintenance of small Wikis I collaborate. My overall as user information is as follows User: Veronidae--Veronidae (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing a lot of crosswiki reverts, though you have a lot of crosswiki edits...   Neutral for now but I could be convinced either way. --Rschen7754 05:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I don't see enough reverts to justify global rollback at this time. It's generally reserved for members of SWMT.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Glaisher [talk] 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. You have many cross-wiki contributions and the tool could be useful for you when you see unconstructive edits to articles, but I don't see enough countervandalism actions anyway. LlamaAl (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per above--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you want to assist in small wiki maintenance, global rollback is certainly the wrong tool. For combating vandalism, I would suggest you to read User:Snowolf/How to globally TWINKLE. This JS solution should be sufficient for your purposes. Cheers, Vogone talk 10:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment It hurts just wanted to help, well either way you lose it, then do not say that one does not help. Bye. --Veronidae (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  Not done No consensus to grant this right exists as shown by the above discussion. Snowolf How can I help? 10:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Global editinterface for JAn Dudík

The following request is closed.

I want to ask for global editinterface rights. I want to use them for removing old-style interwiki links on locked pages (usually templates). These links are mostly present in Wikidata and on some smaller wikis there remains only few locked pages with this links [1]. Estimated period for these rights is till end 2013. thanks, --JAn Dudík (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  •   Comment This request seems to be a bit out of scope for global editinterface to me, as it was created to allow editing the interface mainly (also important css and js pages etc.), not simply protected main space pages. --MF-W 21:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is also my feeling but according to Interface editors "[t]hey maintain templates and the site's JavaScript (*.js) and Cascading Style Sheets (*.css) resources". I don't know whether removing interwiki links falls under template maintaining, though. This task seems to fall more under the GS scope, if I understand that correctly. Vogone talk 21:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    Yes... templates...! You can manage the interwiki links alongside maintaining the templates themselves, I think. But seen separately, I agree that this seems to be more a task for Global Sysops. Projects where GSes don't have access can probably be assumed to have the local capacity to deal with these links. --MF-W 14:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • When I wanted global sysop rights for similar task (maintaining interwiki in locked pages), you (MF-W) said that „Maybe the global editinterface right would fit better to what you want to do.“ [2]. So, which one is the proper?JAn Dudík (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hm, I wanted to express that I think here this is a task global sysops can do, without it necessarily being their main task or a task for which Global Sysop rights should be given. The discussion you link to was in 2010, I suppose my opinion on what Global Editinterface should be used for may have changed; and/or I didn't particularly think about the permissibility of using GEI for this when writing that. --MF-W 18:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur with the opinions expressed above. Removing the interwiki links is more a gs job, and there is no need to have a global group doing this task on projects where there are ample local admins, especially because it isn't an urgent one (the leftover links do no harm) Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Glaisher (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ajraddatz. --Stryn (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - sorry. Per above --Simeondahl (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --cyrfaw (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Oppose largely per the same reasons that the Addbot GEI request failed. --Rschen7754 07:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not done due to lack of support. --Bencmq (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Global editinterface for 99of9

I'd like an extension of my global editinterface rights. I was granted them a year ago, and have been translating the sidebars of any non-English wiki I visit into English. I have not encountered any problem in the last year, and so if you are willing, I would like to continue doing this task. It's not high-volume work, but I think it's useful. In terms of trustworthiness, I'm a bureaucrat on Commons, and have never been warned or blocked on any project. --99of9 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  •   Support I've reviewed a lot of what you've done over the last year, and it looks good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Care to link some, for the lazy part of the population? --MF-W 18:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --LlamaAl (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm a bit concerned, especially about the message creations on big wikis as Interface editors clearly says "Interface editors should avoid making routine changes to the interface on larger wikis without prior agreement". Furthermore, I am still not sure whether this task is really in the global editinterface group's scope and like for JAn Dudík above I would rather suggest to request the WikiSet limited GS right. Vogone talk 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support - I can't see why you should not continue your work :) --Simeondahl (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support for another year --Alan (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support --cyrfaw (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support Good work last year, it should continue. LlamaAl (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support per LlamaAl --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Neutral As I said during the initial request, I still fail to see why it was truly needed, but again I see no harm at all. --Bencmq (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   SupportΛΧΣ21 03:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Extended for 1 year. This activity does not seem to have created any problems including in large wikis. Ruslik (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all. --99of9 (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Jack Phoenix

About a year ago I applied for global editinterface rights to ensure that CSS and JS code on WMF wikis meets the MediaWiki coding standards and to fix some obvious issues I come across. This is something I'm still very interested in, and thus I'd like to keep my global editinterface rights in order to perform this work. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 21:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I like your work and I would like to see it continued but according to luxo:Jack Phoenix you haven't user this right for over a half year. Is there currently nothing to do? Vogone talk 10:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is ongoing work that depends on various factors, such as how active the local administrators are in adding (and maintaining!) new CSS and JS to their wiki. Needless to say, MediaWiki.org, Meta-Wiki or the English Wikipedia has probably more people adding, reviewing and maintaining code than a Wiktionary or Wikiversity in a small, lesser-known language.

Like most of us here, I'm working on this as a volunteer, on my own free time, solely because I believe it'll help people out. That's why I can't promise you "I'll work X hours each week on this". Sometimes I'm able to spend days or maybe even weeks focusing on this neverending project, whereas at times I don't have time for anything else than critical bug fixes on request. Thankfully the global editinterface group has some really capable and awesome folks in it, so my periods of inactivity shouldn't rock the boat too much. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  •   Support Jack isn't super active on-wiki, but he still helps out supporting users in #mediawiki, #wikimedia-tech, etc, fixing broken stuff when it's there. Legoktm (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support We're all volunteers here; if he makes even one contribution with this right then it's a net positive for Wikimedia, so I have no objections to letting him continue. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it will be a net plus for all projects if Jack Phoenix keeps this right. Ruslik (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We truely need a central code and a central template (including LUA) repository. -- Rillke (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Many scripts are only relevant to one project, and I'd be hesitant to create another Meta-focused project like that, considering MediaWiki.org already has some kind of code review interface. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  Done for one more year through 2014-08-14.--Jusjih (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for Zhangjintao

Hi,Stewards. I live in China, Because of Great Firewall of China, I can't access to Wikimedia Projects , especially Wikipedia's secure connection (Https) is blocked now, I need to use proxy visit wikipedia .I have IP block exempt in Chinese wikipedia,but I may edit other wikimedia sites like incubator or mediawiki.org, I want to Request for global IP block exemption .Thank you. --Zhangjintao (Connect to me at zh-wikipedia) (Connect to me at meta)

  On hold until 1 July. Ruslik (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Mehdi

Hi, I'm active user in commons and fa.wp. In Iran the Iranian government filtered lots of pictures, images and pages of Wikimedia projects! So i should use a proxy (many kinds) for working and editing in commons and other projects of Foundation! I have this right in commons and fa.wp locally but I have file mover right in commons and some times i have to rename and move files to new name in other projects but it is impossible for me when I'm connected to the internet with blocked IPs! I need Global IP block exempt right for edit pages and files without problem! thanks, --MehdiTalk 14:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please approve or deny my request! what should i do?! :| --MehdiTalk 10:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  Support trusted and active user--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. @};- --MehdiTalk 21:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Koavf

Whether or not I connect through a VPN, I still find myself inexplicably IP blocked on en.wp and sometimes globally. I'm a trusted user. --—Justin (koavf)TCM 18:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Lanwi1

Because of the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and Great Firewall of China, I can't access to Wikimedia Projects some page directly, so I need to use proxy visit wikipedia sometimes. I have 4700+ edits in zhwp and 1550+ edits in jawp without block record. thanks, --Lanwi1 (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  Support If so then you have support from me. --Kolega2357 (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

From checking meta data, I don't see that you are blocked. If you are still getting blocked, would you be so kind as to email to stewards the block text, and we can review it there. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Because the GFW block Wikipedia HTTPS links, so I need to use open proxy edit Wikimedia Projects. --Lanwi1 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
billinghurst meant that he didn't see your IP used on meta being globally blocked. --Bencmq (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I use IP is 65.49.*.*. --Lanwi1(Talk) 09:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I use IP really has been blocked. ([9], etc.)--Lanwi1(Talk) 12:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see any IP address that is being blocked. Closing here, please address again when there is data available for stewards to utilise. Marking as   Not done at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Qwerty Binary

Dear stewards,

I have been an editor since ages and have a handful of edits. I often edit from computers on a college/university network with a shared IP. Universities being what they are, the IP address is frequently blocked and for long durations. So that I might be able to edit while on the college/university network, I am thus requesting a global IP block exemption and would appreciate your kindness.

My apologies if this isn't the right template or in the right section. Any additional help is very welcome.

Much thanks and kind regards. -QB --Qwerty (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me like you mainly edit the English Wikipedia? Maybe it's best to seek a local IP block exemption first. If it's granted, and you wish to extend your activities to other wikis at some time, a global IPBE can be considered. --MF-W 14:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, MF-Warburg, and thank you for your reply. Oh, that sounds like a good and reasonable idea and I'll give that a go first.
If I were to request IP block exemption from Wiki Commons, however, would I have to request that independently at Wiki Commons as well? --Qwerty (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard I think. --MF-W 14:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  Not done at this time. Can reopen if the problem has become widespread. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Gransar

I like to request unblock for my ip/username. Here is the message I receive: You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

Editing from your IP address (204.12.255.53) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 04:46, 24 July 2013 by Billinghurst (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason: Cross-wiki spam: spambot: http://whois.domaintools.com/204.12.234.122

This block began on 04:46, 24 April 2013

You can contact Billinghurst to discuss the block and you may make unblock requests or file appeals at meta:Steward requests/Global. Your current IP address is 204.12.255.53. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

You have only one edit outside this wiki (on enwiki). So, probably should ask for a local IP block exemption first. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The block has expired, there is no requirement for IPBE. Please reapply if required. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for William915

The Great Firewall of China has made it very slow to access and edit some pages and impossible to access some pages. That's why I have acquired local IP block exemption in zhwiki and used open proxy to edit. I have contributed to the zhwiki for a long time after I have acquired local IPBE and I have never abused it. I have also acquired local IPBE in zh-yuewiki, enwiki and wikidata recently and I believe a global IPBE would be a better choice for me when I tried to edit some pages on mediawikiwiki and zhwiktionary recently.

The global block was done by Vituzzu in June (the line in global IP block log is attached below), mainly to prevent cross-wiki spams from users with usernames starting with "bagswish". Some sysops have performed CheckUser in enwiki and has proved that my account is not related to the spam after they have granted me local IPBE(See enwiki, oldid=564142720). I believe what stated above further qualifies me as a global IPBE user.

15:24, 1 June 2013 Vituzzu (talk | contribs) globally blocked User:8.35.201.214/21 (expires 15:24, 1 June 2018) (Open proxy: google apps: spam from users bagswish*)

Thank you for your concern. --William915 (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  Done We won't be removing that block anytime soon, and you do participate xwiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Hvn0413

Because of the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and Great Firewall of China, I can't access to some Wikimedia Projects pages directly, so I need to use proxy to visit Wikipedia sometimes. I have 14,796 edits in zhwp.

The block log is as follows:

Editing from your IP address (50.31.254.202) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 21:29, 27 September 2017 by Vituzzu (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason: Open proxy: hosting on server central + spam from 50.31.240.86

This block began on 21:29, 27 September 2012

You can contact Vituzzu to discuss the block and you may make unblock requests or file appeals at meta:Steward requests/Global. Your current IP address is 50.31.254.202. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

Thanks, --Hvn0413 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you applied to zhWP for a local block exemption? The preference of stewards is that local exemptions to blocks are preferable. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
To note that the IP addressed use on this request is not from or near the blocked range, though would be from the indicated country of origin. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have IP block exempt on zhwp and enwp, and I have never abused them. I am not related to the spam. Thank you. --Hvn0413 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the information about the local assignations previously having been undertaken would have been good upfront.   Donebillinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)