Open main menu
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 May 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Contents

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for Iluvatar

Hello world! Hello everyone! I need GR for efficiently fight obvious vandalism, spam in small wikis. I'm otrs-volunteer and local rollbacker, closer, editor, filemover in ruwp. As SWMT-member i made 400+ reverts (~100 wikis).--Iluvatar (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  •   Neutral. A lot of contributions seems to be creating your userpage and that kind of stuff. I have to think about this some more. --Wiki13 talk 13:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    This user has added an additional comment below in which he expresses his support to this candidacy. Vogone (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support--Kolega2357 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Cross-wiki reverts seems fine. Active enough. You should also get those unattached accounts attached to your main global account. Regards, --Glaisher [talk] 13:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Rather active globally and per Glaisher. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 13:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support 2 days ago Cross Wikis attacked by Mass spamming effort, TBloemink and Tegel can confirm this, this guy here manage to tag 98% of those approx 120 spam pages before me, and manage to stole more than half of my "supposed to be reversion" of those nonsense spam, of course I would support this fast guy.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 13:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I've agree with Wiki13 above, but please give the opportunity for this user (about 400+ reverts in 100 wikis is good job for my reason). Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? -FASTILY 09:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support, and yes, I can confirm Aldnonymous' comment. — TBloemink talk 21:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support, active and has done good cross-wiki work. --Stryn (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support per above. --Defender (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Sure. --Wiki13 talk 17:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems fine. Vogone (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support don't see a reason why note. --Goldenburg111 23:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? --Steinsplitter (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alan (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good reverts and activity. LlamaAl (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Global rollback for Nastoshka

Hello! I'd like to make better use of my experience in the fight against vandalisms, spam and gibberish on the Wikimedia projects. I've been contributing (altough not regularly) on it.wikipedia and it.wiktionary since 2006 with my old account (User:Moread). Three months ago I created this new global account and I joined the SWMT and started to contribute cross-wiki (more than 100 wikis). I point out that I am already Patroller on it.wiktionary and it.wikivoyage, so I think I know how the rollback tool works and when to use it. I'm also autopatrolled in some other wikis and I'm also almost bilingual (Italian and Russian) so I have no problem as well with cyrillic alphabet . Regards and thanks if you would consider me trustworthy. --Nastoshka (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Support--Kolega2357 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Checking over a bunch of the candidate's recent reverts shows competence in deciding which edits to revert. I've also noticed them active in the cvn-sw channel. Considering that almost five days have past, this request will probably stay open for longer, and I would encourage other users to check the candidate's global contributions themselves and vote. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    Please note this isn't a vote and it is rather pointless to wait for more "{{support}} per above ~~~~" comments unless there is any opposition. Please also see en:WP:Silence and consensus (not even complete silence in this case) which explains how to deal with lack of opposition very well, in my opinion. Vogone (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, there is nothing to suggest that this isn't a vote. Furthermore, by vote I do not mean "{{support}} per above ~~~~", but rather comments of the nature that I've given which provide a justification for whether or not they should be given global rollback rights. As nice as no opposition is, it is even more nice to have a group of people who have confirmed that they've checked the candidate's global contributions and approve. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    Quoting from the section header: "This is not a vote, and all input is welcome." And encouraging other users to review the candidate's contributions is nothing bad, I merely wondered why there should be a timely "extension" to this discussion. Regards, Vogone (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    Hmm, didn't see that one. Either way, I think that a request for global rollback should have more than two comments before it is closed. Since it now has many more, I see no problem with closing on time. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support sure — TBloemink talk 09:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support, I noticed one/few mistakes, but I feel (s)he has learned from them. --Stryn (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Good work, and easy   Support, but I'd like to ask Nastoshka the following questions: 1) should users who blank their talk pages be reverted? (And why was it "vandalism"?) 2) you claim to have advanced knowledge of German, and I don't, so could you explain this to me? 3) why did you revert content addition here? Thx ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Olá DanielTom thank you very much for your support message. I think you've tracked down all the mistakes which Stryn referred to :) (I appreciate your fervour). So here are my explanations:
    • Users who blank their own userpages: I come essentially from Wikipedia project among the other projects and on Wikipedia (both italian and english) we suggest not to blank user talk pages, since they contains message from other users which could be useful to find whenever in the future. So I considered it worthy to be reverted, if it was a mistake I'm sorry and I promise to be more carefull the next time. For the "vandalism" I've just pushed the wrong button on Twinkle (in stead of AGF revert)
    • Correction on German Wikibooks: I actually study German at university and I've lived in Germany there some months. To exemplify the user who edited substituted present indicative to the subjunctive. In portuguese is the same thing as "tu és" and "tu sejas". But in that particular case I think that subjunctive expresses better the idea of the sentence. That was just a stylistic correction.
    • Third link: Perhaps I should not have reverted that one but it was more than a month ago and I was less expert than I am now. In that period on Italian wikipedia we were fighting many IP that enjoyed to make such little vandalisms as substitute the number of inhabitans or an historic date with an incorrect one. On the page you linked I just thought that if many administrators and users had left the number of inhabitans in 1979 unchanged there was no reason to change it without linking a connected clear source, so I considered it something like a joke.
If you have other questions I'll be glad to answer. Thanks --Nastoshka (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support, no reason why not, also great language skills. I only wonder why they left their old account and began with a new one? Trijnsteltalk 23:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Trijnstel. The reason because I changed account is quite simple and may sound almost stupid. I had been non active for a long time after 2006 (more thab 2 years) and I just forgot the password and nickname, so I created a new account. When I started to contribute constantly and joined the cvn-sw I used this account because it has the advantage of being global while my old one was just local; so I decided to ask a bureaucrat to block my old one and use only this one. --Nastoshka (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Judged by the contribs of Moread, I don't think that's true since you edited on the last few days until your account was blocked... Trijnsteltalk 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to say that then I retrieved my password and nickname but at that moment I had already two accounts and I asked a bureaucrat whether was possible to unify the accounts but it were not possible. So I decided to keep only this one that is global. Sorry if I've not been enough clear --Nastoshka (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Great candidate: actively involved in reverting vandalism on multiple wikis, member of Small Wiki Monitoring Team, great language skills. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  The request succeeds. --MF-W 09:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Global sysop for Aldnonymous

Not ending before 7 May 2014 18:58 UTC

Hello everyone, today I'm volunteering for Global Sysopship. The reason I'm volunteering for GS is because I often met with spam and vandal pages that persistently added or recreated and need to be deleted, and often happen when other GS are unavailable, I will also do blocking for persistent vandalism and spamming basing from 1 to 3 warning on their talkpage. I already doing cross wiki works for anti vandalism and maintenance which is under GS bit scope, and I understand the GS bit scope policy, thanks to everyone who read this request.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Sure. Aldnonymous has done good with with the SWMT recently, and I've never had any concerns with their page taggings or use of global rollback. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I really thought someone has given you a global sysop flag in the past. But no, that was GR, at the end of March. I do   Support this, you do great work and I'd only   Like the idea of you being a GS. — TBloemink talk 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Small addition/explanation: I ask myself the question: do I feel comfortable with the user in question having these rights? My answer is yes. I do not take into consideration how long someone has had the GR flag, just trust. And I trust this user. — TBloemink talk 09:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - regretfully, I oppose. It seems that this is too early, as that you requested global rollback just a month ago, personally, I would see about 6 months of rollbacking vandalism and spam edits. I am sorry, but this is just early, in my view. --Goldenburg111 20:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for your opinion Goldenburg111, I never knew GR-GS is cursus honorum, although I already editing globally even before joining swmt and before volunteering for GR, is still can't find anything about this (either understand or knowing this), I'm truly sorry if my request is too fast, regards.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 21:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Some more experience with the gr flag first might be a good idea, though I trust you to use the gs bit well if elected. You could always withdraw and request again in a few months. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for the input Ajr, but I'm not gonna withdraw this request, if the community reject it I will accept it and will wait (I'm doing this to force myself to gain experience), if community accepting it, I will use the bit carefully per policy, best regards :D.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 01:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not now, it is too early. Alan (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A bit early. And I oppose cursus honorum ideas. --MF-W 01:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I want to make it clear that it is my opinion that
      1. a cursus honorum which requires people to be GR (for x time / at all) before becoming a GS (or a steward etc.) should not exist. Requirements we want in candidates for these positions are naturally often similar, but not the same nor building on each other.
      2. nevertheless a vast amount of experience (expressed also, but not only, simply by time of activity) is necessary before one is entrusted delete, block, protect rights on 700+ wikis. --MF-W 20:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - it's better to wait a bit more.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Although it is a bit early, his work in general has been quite good. (FYI: I estimate he has 263 deleted edits on GS wikis.) PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    To clarify, I fully support this candidate. I agree with ajr and TB as well. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • He's been very active in countervandalism on the smaller wikis but I also agree with others' comments above about this request being a bit early. Kind regards, --Glaisher [talk] 05:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I hardly believe Aldnonymous will turn into a vandal just because we assign him these rights a few months "too early". The candidate is trusted, experienced and active which makes me feel uncomfortable joining the users above me who apparently at least don't think Aldnonymous is experienced enough for deleting the pages he tagged by himself in the future. Vogone talk 05:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'd also like to add that I disagree with cursus honorum ideas especially since GR and GS follow a different scope. Vogone talk 12:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    So everyone who starts to put the delete template on pages on GS wikis should become a GS just because he puts the delete templates there? --MF-W 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    No, but everyone who showed that he puts the deletion templates responsibly and frequently and thus would reduce the work for the other global sysops/stewards significantly without causing a loss of quality regarding these actions. Vogone talk 22:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    Merely adding that I support the candidate's promotion (which can also be seen in my comment, just noting it here explicitly in case it is still unclear to someone). Vogone (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ajraddatz and TBloemink.--Minimaxima (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A bit early. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Per PiRSquared17 above, he's very active user in global wikis. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Though I agree that this is a tad early, I fully trust Aldnonymous to use the tools appropiately and therefore   Support this request. LlamaAl (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Trusted, experienced and active. Should be okay IMO. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 16:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'm still not sure what to vote (pro or con) - my vote could change though. Trijnsteltalk 22:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    "Please note that global sysop discussions are not votes. Comments must present specific points in favor of or against a user's approval" from the section header. Vogone talk 22:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    Hello Trijnstel, it's fine to just comment, community input is important after all, kind regards :D .--AldNonUcallin?☎ 02:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Strong support --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? -FASTILY 09:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. I agree with the comments saying that it's a bit early. Even though I agree with these comments, I don't want to oppose your GS candidacy. Besides that, your are doing great work! Keep that up for a few months and I'll happily support you then. --Wiki13 talk 17:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact of this being 'a bit early', solely, shouldn't be an impediment IMO considering Aldononymous is trusted, experienced and active and there are no (relevant) issues (that I'm aware of). Defender (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - I know this isn't a vote but I am undecided. And it's not the animation on the user page that's putting me off :) I feel it could be too early although edits here and on my main wiki have been productive.--Xania (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    Hello Xania, what kind of "too early" here you're talking about? Is it about my past request for GR? or is it because of edit? AFAIK I feel I already have same kind of amount of edit with the rest of GS, and about past request with GR which is slightly more than 1 month ago, I don't think it could be a problem since GR is not cursus honorum with GS since it follow different scope, so I think it's fine with this GS request now. Well anyway, your input is greatly appreciated, since it means you know and care about global matter for Wikimedia community, thanks! :D --AldNonUcallin?☎ 01:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, I am undecided. I also have to say that I understand the concept of cursus honorum (at least with regards to history) but what do people mean when they keep using it here on Wikimedia. Please explain.--Xania (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    They mean that there is a sequence in which people should acquire advanced permissions, such as significant time as a global rollbacker and a local sysop before becoming a global sysop in this case. The counter-argument is that each role is different and requires a different skill set, and thus does not need to follow the order of progression that is most common. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    Ahaha, sorry to make you confused, per ajr also my explanation here: en:Cursus honorum, Basically it means "people had to hold this rights to proceed for the next rights", means they think rights are rank like in military or civilian administratorship, this concept had been gone to far being usual procedure example: people had to held Global Rollback for becoming Global Sysop (but in fact it had different scope), this is what making people think my request is a bit fast regarding my GR request is just slightly more than 1 month ago, thank you for the question :D--AldNonUcallin?☎ 20:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks to both of you and sorry for taking this discussion off-topic. I was aware of the term but I had always associated it with age rather than length of service which is why I was confused (I thought people were suggesting you were too young). Anyway, I will likely change my vote one way or the other in the next few days should the vote stay open.--Xania (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    I don't know why being young is relevant but FYI I've been identified by foundation (see Identification noticeboard) Also for clarification I'm 22 Years old IRL.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support – I can't imagine how he could hurt any project, and (unlike a couple of elected global sysops) he doesn't strike me as having evil intentions, though perhaps he is still a bit immature (":D"). When I reviewed his countervandalism efforts (at the time of his global rollbacker request), I couldn't find any mistakes in his edits, and although this request follows the previous one at an alarming rate – presumably because the candidate realized how easy it is to be "elected" around here –, if being power-hungry was a reason to oppose global sysops, we would have none of 'em left. So, if he still wants to spend his time doing anti-vandalism work, I think giving him GS rights can only do good. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for your (not unhelpful) input, but there are two things I would like to clarify. Firstly, global sysops are not elected but appointed. The discussion is just helping the stewards to decide whether it would be a good idea to appoint someone or not. Secondly, global sysop access does not increase your "power". It is merely technical and as the policy also states "[global sysops] have no extra editorial control over content or the local community." Though, it might be true that some GS/stewards are occassionally acting as if they were the "wiki police" which they obviously should not do but this is a different issue. Regards, Vogone (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  Not done The community including stewards are obviously divided in the present case due to perceived lack of experience and no consensus to grant the GS access exists now. In such a situation I think it is better for Aldnonymous to re-apply in 2-3 months for a clear consensus to be established. Therefore I close this nomination as not done but with a regret. Ruslik (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Global sysop for Defender

Not ending before 20 May 2014 19:25 UTC

Hi. I'd like to request access to this toolkit to be able to delete vandal/spam/test pages and block persistent vandals on GS projects. I've been active in the SWMT with GR for some time and I have experience of being a sysop on ptwiktionary, ptwikiquote and here on Meta. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thank you for your consideration. Defender (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Sure, you have been very active and beat all my deletion tags on many wikis.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 19:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I do not have any reasons to oppose — TBloemink talk 19:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support why aren't you now? --Goldenburg111 19:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Defender has been involved in countervandalism/spam work globally for a long time. Moreover, (s)he's regularly active and trusted. So has my full support. --Glaisher [talk] 09:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wiki13 talk 10:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Defender has a good level of cross-wiki activity and a lot of experience with the admin toolkit. LlamaAl (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 04:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support – good work on many wikis, hard to find someone more deserving of the tools. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Trijnsteltalk 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Xania (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. –BruTe talk 09:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Per above (especially Glaisher, LlamaAl, DanielTom, Aldnonymous): he is very experienced with SWMT work, and often reverts vandalism and spam, and tags pages on small wikis for deletion. He is also among the most active of the SWMT. As a global sysop (being able to act on GS wikis instead of waiting for someone else to), he would be more efficient. Since he is already an admin on some wikis (Meta and two Portuguese projects), I think he can be trusted with global sysop tools. (FYI: I estimate he has 571 deleted edits on GS wikis, although that's not counting any under the "Striker" account). PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Very goog work! --Nastoshka (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support, no concerns... QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Stryn (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Done - clear consensus to promote. Thanks to Defender for volunteering :) Ajraddatz (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Global editinterface for Rundl132

When I want to translated this recently, I met "Saving the translation failed: You're not allowed to edit interface messages". I enjoy translating here and want to do some ground work about translating. Thanks, --Rhong Fu talk 09:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think this rationale is sufficient for granting you this permission globally. I think this is a metawiki matter and thus should also be handled on the local request page. Regards, Vogone (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    Or if you want this specific unit to be translated, post at RFH, both the en and zh versions, linking to where an admin can update the translation, as the header of that page says. --Glaisher [talk] 10:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I re-submit my request at Meta:Requests for adminship/Rundl132. Should I undo the request here?--Rhong Fu talk 11:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Please submit the request on RFH (example 1, example 2). Just asking an admin to do it is easier than requesting adminship to translate one group. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Rhong Fu talk 11:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Requests for global IP block exemption

Other requests

Global abusefilter-helper for Vogone

Hello! I hereby request the abusefilter-helper permission in order to be able to view private filters across Wikimedia (including global filters) which would help me with my global countervandalism work in the SWMT as well as it would give me the ability to assist other users with abusefilter problems. The rights included in this global group are merely "passive" so that it would only give me additional abilities to view filters, but of course not to modify them. Since I am already a GS, I can already view private filters on most Wikimedia wikis but, as already mentioned, the ability to view private global filters would come in handy as well. Thanks for consideration, Vogone talk 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  •   Support--Kolega2357 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Sure. Being able to view existing abusefilters on large projects can be very useful when designing them on smaller ones. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate about which filters you are interested in and how you will "assist" other users? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sure. From time to time it occurs that abusefilter changes are being discussed on for example IRC and in some cases, these filters are private and thus unviewable to me which means I cannot give any suggestions in these situations unless an administrator reveals the content of the filter to me. However, I could help in a more effective way in such cases if I only had the ability to view the discussed one as well as already existing other filters in order to look for solutions in other cases. Furthermore, being able to view abuse filters on bigger wikis can also help me to improve filters on smaller wikis or to suggest creations of/improvements to the global ones. Though, of course this is nothing which would be needed every day, but from time to time it really comes in handy and since the rights in this group are all "passive" there is also not much room for abuse of these rights, not even accidentally, except maybe if I wanted to reveal filters to the public which is certainly not my plan. Vogone talk 21:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Reasonable. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support, per answer to PiRsquared17 question.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 22:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Vogone is an active and trusted user.--Calak (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Trusted and active user. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? -FASTILY 09:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. When I created this usergroup I intended it to be one person group. If there exists support to make the abusefilter-helper group into an ordinary global usergroup, I am fine with it. In the latter case a wikipage should be probably created. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support - sure, helped me yesterday with abusefilter stuff, so I am perfectly fine with giving Vogone this bit — TBloemink talk 09:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done Per consensus above. SPQRobin (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)