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

Contents

Requests for global rollback permissions

Requests for global sysop permissions

Requests for global editinterface permissions

Global editinterface for Technical 13

Per en:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MediaWiki editor, I'm first requesting this user right to continue my work in updating deprecated and obsolete HTML tags that I started on enwp with this batch request for an administrator to process for me. I realized that these same tags are likely in use on multiple other wikis and I would like to clean some of them up. Secondly, I would like to be able to maintain the articles for creation gadget on en as I am currently its primary developer and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to find administrators that can read JavaScript to get version pushes done. I fully understand that any use on my part for a project that is out of scope of this request without discussion and consensus (or a proposal with lack of objection after a reasonable amount of time per normal protocol) would be immediate grounds for removal of the user group and other potential sanctions, and I will not be making any such edits. I would also be happy to post a notice on my user page for other editors concerned with an action of mine to request Interface editors#Removal if appropriate. Thank you for your consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Some quick comments off the bat: mantaining enwiki's gadgets is not a valid request for a right that applies across 850-ish projects. Second, I believe you just had your template editors rights removed on enwiki for edit-warring. Global editinterface rights are very delicate, and need careful handling, as such I oppose this request. Snowolf How can I help? 18:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I particularly find this assessment of the user's behavior by enwiki 'crat xeno to be worrying in regard to an applicant for this userright. Having related userrights removed on one's main project is even more relevant if the user, as in this case, has little to no cross-wiki experience. Snowolf How can I help? 18:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Snowolf, I did have them revoked for an unrelated reason, and there is a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Template Editor User:Technical 13 where there are administrator comments to reinstate. As I've stated in my request, I will not be using this right for any purpose other than the reasons for which I requested it. I'm even willing to not use the right at all on en until the TE thing has been cleared up and only work on cleaning up the deprecated and obsolete HTML. Technical 13 (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It was not an unrelated reason, it was for editwarring with similar rights to the ones contained in the package you're requesting across 850 projects. It matters not whether you will use it on enwiki or not, global editinterface is a sensitive right and it needs careful handling to avoid upsetting local communities. You seem to lack almost any cross-wiki experience and manage to edit-war with a very similar right even on your homewiki. I do not think that you can be trusted to careful manage relations with other projects if you struggle with doing so even on the wiki you're most familiar with. Users can disagree on whether your rights should have been pulled on enwiki or not and I have no idea whether it was the right call or not, but I see at the very least a 'crat supporting the removal and providing the description that I linked to, which is very chilling to me. This is most definitively not the background I'd like to see when seeing a request in this section, and this is why I am opposing it. Global editinterface users should be exceedingly non-controversial. Snowolf How can I help? 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I have since taken a quick peak at the user's enwiki talk page and found several instances of enwiki administrators complaining about T13 edit warring with them, and at least two administrators have produced statements to the effect that T13 use of the template editor rights has been problematic. This is definitively not what we look for in a holder of global rights, especially with the user's experience concentrated so much into the project where he's experiencing these problems. Who knows what might happen on projects where he is not familiar with local policies and customs if this is what happens on the project where he is from. Snowolf How can I help? 18:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably indeed out of this right's scope. Anyway, do you have any evidence for prior local agreement on enwiki ("Interface editors should avoid making routine changes to the interface on larger wikis without prior agreement")? Vogone (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm withdrawing this request until the enwp situation is resolved. I apologize for any inconveniences and will create a new request at a later time. Technical 13 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Global editinterface for 99of9

I'm requesting a second extension of this request whereby I translate sidebar links on any other language wikis that I visit into English. The userright was extended last year, and I've sporadically translated a few more, and would like to continue this task. An example of this work is these edits on vls.wiki. It's not high-volume work, but I think it's useful. In terms of trustworthiness, I'm still a bureaucrat on Commons, and have never been warned or blocked on any project. --99of9 (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Though I appreciate your work, my concern from last time stays, especially in the light of the proposed global policy gaining acceptance. Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rschen7754 06:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Would you mind providing a reason why this user should be promoted? Commentless supports don't help the process much, in my opinion and obviously I would also like to see in how far this task fits to the right's scope, especially since other user's requests with the same rationale provided (e. g. Rzuwig's) were rejected for being out of scope. I know we are still not bound to that proposed policy as it is still under discussion, but as of now it seems like it is going to be accepted so I don't think making exceptions here would be the right way to go. Vogone (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think it's rather implicit... for myself anyway I agree with the rationale of the candidate and think that the task is within the scope of the proposed policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    A simple support means that I have no objections. If I had any, I would have said them, and quite vocally too... --Rschen7754 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support trusted user. sure. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good user who knows what he is doing. He could use the tools according to his statement. He is a hard working collegue who is not a hatcollector so I am sure that he will put the tools to good use. Natuur12 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  Done per comments above. Matanya (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. @User:Vogone In deference to your concerns about large wikis, can I leave de:MediaWiki:Contact/en to you to request through local channels? (BTW, my argument is that even on big wikis my changes only affect those whose language setting is en, which is always small. I suggest that the new policy should reflect this.) --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Krenair

I'm a MediaWiki developer trusted with +2 for the past year and a half, dealing primarily with JavaScript (outside of core) these days, and can help out with updating tools to remove dependencies on deprecated features. Or disabling loading of external resources, if that comes up. I'm also a sysop and bureaucrat on mediawikiwiki if that helps. Thanks, --Krenair (talkcontribs) 20:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Support Yes please. Legoktm (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Of course! - Hoo man (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 moar hands to remove privacy policy violations. --Nemo 20:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support definitely. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll execute this if no one objects by tomorrow. Matanya (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Matanya: You are aware that this is not a renewal request, that there is ongoing discussion about the GEI scope on an RFC, and that if you close it tomorrow, it would only have been open for less than 48 hours? I find this a bit too fast, suggest keeping it open for at least a week, if not two. Savhñ 12:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Now i am. Thank you savh, for some reason i was sure it is a renewal. I wonder why i picked that up from. Sure, a week or two sounds reasonable. Matanya (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
'Tomorrow' was surprising for me too, but a week, if not two? I'd love to know why you think my request should wait that long in comparison to others, Savh. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 13:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a short period of consideration. A steward will review the request. While 48 hours seem a bit short, two weeks might be a bit too long. However, there is no set time for such requests. -Barras talk 13:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Two weeks in indeed over the top, I was just using the standard GS granting periods as a reference. As far as I can see in the RFC I linked, 5 days is the proposed minimum discussion time, which I think is fine, and even though it has not been implemented yet, I feel tempted to follow. My main point was that 48h were not sufficient, even though it seems to have been handled so in previous cases. I didn't mean it personally, nor do I feel you are unsuitable to be granted the right or that your request specifically should be open for longer. I am sorry it could be interpreted that way, it wasn't my intention. Savhñ 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you Savh. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 00:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Glaisher (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I trust the user.--Jasper Deng (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I am with Matanya on this. Already doing much in the way of MW hacking, and implementing of aspects in core, and configuration of individual wikis. Clearly a deserving applicant. Trusted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rschen7754 06:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? -FASTILY 07:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  Done good luck with the extra buttons. Matanya (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  Support Congrats and welcome to the group. –Krinkletalk 17:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Helder.wiki

This would make it easier for me to help in the migration of gadgets and scripts to keep them updated. I started doing this kind of task inspired by Krinkle's Tour de Wikí and, due to this interest, I'm watching Gerrit changes which touch JS files and following a few tickets on Bugzilla related to the front-end. So far, I have resorted to "editprotected" requests to suggest improvements for scripts I use, or which would break when certain front-end changes go live, or even to keep things synchronized between wikis (when there are forks), but it would help if I could fix them directly. I'm also a sysop on ptwiki and ptwikibooks and have submitted a few patches to MW. --Helder.wiki 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Trusted user. --Glaisher (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   SupportKrinkletalk 18:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Helder has done a great job on pt.wikipedia firstly as local interface editor, then as sysop. Also participate in other projects in this area with large experience.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 00:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support--Calak (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 12:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Legoktm (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support--Defender (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Érico Wouters msg 08:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done - granted for a year. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Helder.wiki 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for Deivis

I'm locked in all wikis except es.wiki, my IP range, is blocked globally. I have excension in es.wiki, so I can only edit there. Thanks, --Deivis (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

His IP address is 96.47.238.221 - he said that on IRC half an hour ago. Trijnsteltalk 21:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
He also exposed the issue in the es.wiki administrators' channel using that IP address. I find the global permission justified. --abián 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Deivis: The block is a soft block, and that simply requires you to login to edit. There shouldn't be a need for an IPBE.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I use wikipedia from a VPN service, because my ISP blocks wikipedia, these IP are blocked throughout wikipedia. I can only edit in es.wiki, --Deivis (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Deivis: I understand that, but not what I was saying. What I am saying is that the block that is in place by stewards is a soft block. It only blocks anonymous (IP) edits. If you are logged in, then you should be able to edit without hindrance. So as you are logged in to edit here, that same effect should happen across all WMF wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Look at this picture, it is clear that in commons I'm blocked by IP, --Deivis (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, obviously the block on that IP's range (Special:GlobalBlockList/96.44.189.53) is not anon-only. --MF-W 09:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done, seems reasonable. - Hoo man (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Yxyang93

I'm living in China, and sometimes I only have to use a proxy to wikipedia. I already have a zh wikipedia ip block exemptions, but for me to edit other wikis useless. So I want to have a global ip block exemptions. Thanks, --Azunyan(留言) 12:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've granted your global account exemption from global blocks. Ajraddatz (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.--Azunyan(留言) 08:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Strategygame411

For some unknown reason my ip has been banned for vandalism, however I just signed up hours ago. I would like permission to create a couple of wiki pages that I think Wikipedia could mention>, thanks, --Strategygame411 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done as it should not be necessary at this time. I have checked your IP address of use, and the block is an anonymous only block, and if you are logged in to your WMF account, then you should be able to edit without issue. If that is not the case, then you should paste your block information to SRG or email stewards wikimedia.org with that detail and we will investigate further.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)