Steward requests/Global permissions/2015-01

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for -revi

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


I have been active on SWMT (primarily on Korean wikiprojects where I don't have admin rights, but I also idle on #cvn-swconnect) and COIBot reports, and I think I could benefit from the GR tools so I can revert spam and vandalism faster. For example, I have reverted some spam links per COIBot reports since Oct 2014, (1, 2, 3, 4 and some more...) and I think GR tool will help me reverting faster.

(PS. 8~9 edits on all wikis are part of global userpage JS (Now defunct). Contribs on some wikis may include Commons filemover system's automated file replacements.)

— Revi 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support. I find Revi knowledgeable and easy to work with, particularly on cross-wiki matters. In fact I would trust him with global sysop as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Per Jasper. Eurodyne (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Stryn (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • supportDerHexer (Talk) 11:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. Ruy Pugliesi 11:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support :D Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • support Fine for me--DangSunM (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes! -Barras talk 12:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, we can always use help from trusted user, welcome -revi.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 13:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course! --Alan (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Courcelles 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • &  no concerns. Snowolf How can I help? 16:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course! Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Trusted Grind24 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. Érico Wouters (msg) 17:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes--Syum90 (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. Sure. LlamaAl (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rschen7754 02:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ///EuroCarGT 00:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Matiia (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support ·addshore· talk to me! 14:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, looks like a good plan. -- M\A 14:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support - Taketa (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Neutral "crossactivity" implies exceptional low global cvn activity for a global rollback applicant, but since I know and trust Revi and he appears to have had periods with significantly higher cvn activity in the past, he will probably do well. Vogone (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done, nihil obstat. And you would've gotten my support too if I saw this earlier. :) Trijnsteltalk 11:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Global sysop for Ruy Pugliesi

Not ending before 16 January 2015 21:46 UTC

Hi, everyone. I'd like to apply for gs permission again. I was a global sysop for more than 2 years, from March 2012 to July 2014, when I lost this permission due to inactivity. I was a quite busy in real life in 2014. However, in November, I returned to the countervanlism tasks, and I miss having this set of admin tools. I have been a member of the SWMT since 2010. Talking about local sysopship, I hold the sysop bit on, en.wikiversity and, and I'm currently a global rollbacker. I hope I can help a bit more by having this permission, again. Thanks, Ruy Pugliesi 21:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support Fine by me. Eurodyne (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. Bem-vindo de volta! Érico Wouters (msg) 17:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Okay. Trijnsteltalk 18:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As above, if he want to help again, then fine by me. Welcome back. -- M\A 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Matiia (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support He fights a lot against the vandalism since he came back and if he was capable to use the tool once, i believe that he can now redo it without any problem.Grind24 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. --///EuroCarGT 05:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support, Used to be famous wikimedian, welcome back.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 07:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I see resumed activity from 29th December 2014 on, which was approx. a week ago. This seems a bit little to me, considering the reason for the de-GS was inactivity. I fear pretty much this may happen again unless this time the last week's activity level is kept up for a longer period. Vogone (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No objections; if he thinks he can help as a GS, I don't see a problem in giving him the right, considering the reason for removal was noncontroversial. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; too early after activity resumed (esp. when the removal was because of inactivity). --MF-W 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose - sorry, but the last 6 users that were recently given global permissions (gr/gs) have either disappeared or have reduced their activity and you have only become active late in December...I would like to see more activity from you as per MF-W--Stemoc 03:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support-Yes!-- MohandesWiki Talk ‏ 10:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support--Calak (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Jmvkrecords (Intra Talk) 01:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC).
  •   Support I don't see why not, as long as he will be active in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • support--DangSunM (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  Done. Clear consensus supporting this request. Please remember to subscribe to the mailing list (again?). Handle the rights with care, Savhñ 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Ruy Pugliesi 22:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for Ochilov

To use Tor browser because of high Internet-censure in Uzbekistan. I promise not to use this right for bad things. --Ochilov (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

How have you been editing on Wikimedia up until now, and why is it necessary for you to start using TOR? I would normally grant this request, but there was another just recently that was declined for having no legitimate need. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I was editing without it, but when I needed to go to the other website, I changed my connectin to VPN, closed Wiki-projects and then surfed internet. It is very hard and boring to turn it on/off every time when I want just to surf internet or simply search materials to Wikipedia, Wikinews or Wikiquote articles. --Ochilov (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  Done Ruslik (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

‎Global IP block exempt for Mjbmr

I've canceled my previous request, I have to use shared IPs for the next month and my robot is running on shared servers, thanks, --Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 09:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Comment The previous request was challenged, though I note that providing global IPBE only circumvents global IP blocks, not local blocks, so concerns about your editing at individual wikis is not problematic. I am unaware of any global IP blocks that have been put in place against the individual, so I don't see a particular issue granting this right to an individual user account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Won't allow me to edit with TOR? or OVH? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 11:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  Granted for 1 month to expire on 2015-02-04. Be aware that any abuse, even if only slightly related to this right, will lead to its inmediate removal and re-enforce of your block on meta. Please also note this is not an apology, and "testing steward intelligence" is obvious disruption. Savhñ 11:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, It really helps, btw see like this, you always have be aware what you are clicking on, and yeah I know that's obvious disruption that's why I've been blocked for a while. but I guess I'm more welcomed for him than before by that apology, that was personal not related to any of my requests. CU system is weak and it's easily bypassable but I'm telling I don't need to mess around with people. I only focus of the content, for now I'm busy with Persian Wikinews and with scripting, I'll let you know If I couldn't edit any where. sorry to made you feel bad, I never seen granting temp IPBE. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 13:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for 御坂ミコト

I have to use proxies for that there exists heavy Internet censorship in China. Almost all exit nodes are self-owned VPS and are properly managed. Previous blocks on the IP range of the IDC I am using may exist, and should persist as I may change the service provider after they've been blocked in China. Thanks. --御坂ミコト (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --御坂ミコト (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Wagino 20100516

I'm using TOR at free public internet facilities and my office to make my privacy more secure and save cost, thank you. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Please let us know if you no longer require the right. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks so much for quick approved. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for AHeneen

I do not have a home internet connection and usually edit Wikipedia/Commons/Wikivoyage while tethering my computer to my mobile phone to use the latter's internet connection. It seems the IP address for the phone changes often (I can't tell how often), based on how the mobile phone service provider routes the connection. Today, for the first time, I logged in and nothing seemed unusual until I decided to edit on Wikipedia and could only view the source because the IP address of my internet connection had a global block for long-term vandalism. I copied the information about the block (including IP address) and sent an email to the steward who blocked the IP address (since I couldn't even edit the page Steward requests/Global to request an unblock). However, I received an email that the message was undeliverable, so I don't have the IP address, but I think it started with 172 or 176 and was blocked by User:Savh on 24 January for one month.

In the past, when viewing Wikipedia while not logged in, I've seen the notification of a message on the talk page for that IP address at the time saying that the IP address was blocked, but that I could get around that if I logged in. I presume that is a local block, while the global block I encountered doesn't even allow editing if logged in...and not even the page to request an unblock!? I waited a couple hours, then restarted my phone to try to get a different IP address when it reconnected to the network, which worked to get around the block. However, to prevent this problem in the future, I'm requesting a global IP block exempt. I am an administrator on the English Wikivoyage (although I haven't been very active there for over a year) and have contributed almost 1700 edits on the English Wikipedia (no vandalism, mostly significant contributions and few minor edits). I give my permission for a CheckUser to be performed to verify my claim that I mostly edit using my phone's internet connection, so the IP addresses should be associated with T-Mobile USA. Thanks. --AHeneen (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I encountered a global block again, it's for (also by Savh...I'm not sure if this is the same IP address as earlier). This was fixed by restarting the phone, but that's quite annoying to have to do. AHeneen (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Savh: I see that the blocks are for LTAs, so I didn't soften the blocks on the mobile networks. Would you be able to look at the blocks and the problem child that we are managing and see if we can go to soft blocks or not. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. AHeneen (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Saper

Already   Done, no big deal and user is trusted. -- Hoo man (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests for global rename permissions

Global rename for Alan

Not ending before 24 January 2015 23:43 UTC

Hello! I would request this flag to further assist the community and its users.

My experience is very low, 3 renames only on eswikivoyage, but think I have enough wiki-experience and know well (IMHO) the operation of the tool. I've also helped several users to apply their rename on SRUC in other projects or IRC.

I can help users in Spanish, Basque/Euskera and English. And understand texts in French, Portuguese, Italian and other languages ​​Latin-based.

Regards and thanks for your time reading this. Alan (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Why not?--DangSunM (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support :D Jianhui67 talkcontribs 12:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support of course --Grind24 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. Bai, eta zorte ona. -- M\A 15:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support :) Matiia (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, no issues. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Geros sėkmės! Vogone (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support ~ Nahid Talk 15:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support, Jmvkrecords (Intra Talk) 15:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
  •   Support. Okay. Ruy Pugliesi 15:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. LlamaAl (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Trijnsteltalk 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Okay. Natuur12 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support trusted --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Usuario es de confianza. Eurodyne (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? -FASTILY 09:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support looks like they know what they are doing. --Herby talk thyme 10:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Does a great job as an admin on Commons; I'm sure he'll do fine in this role as well. INeverCry 10:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course! Syum90 (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes. MBisanz talk 15:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uğurkenttalk 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, though low renames, he is a beneficial and trusted user to assist in renaming users globally. ///EuroCarGT02:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support - Taketa (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? (2) — Revi 16:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Revi, Actually It'll be "Why not?" three. You've missed the very first one   ~ Nahid Talk 09:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Global rename for Worm That Turned

Not ending before 24 January 2015 14:27 UTC

Hey all. I'm Worm That Turned, from English Wikipedia. I've been a bureaucrat for a little under a year and ran primarily to help out with privacy renames that came through the Arbitration Committee. My term on that committee has since ended. I initially intended to hand in my bureaucrat bit, but have had a change of heart and hope to help out a bit in renaming on English Wikipedia.

I'll freely admit I'm not terribly experienced in renaming, having done only about half a dozen, but I do understand the policies and those who know me will agree I'm not exactly a risk taker, so won't be wading into controversial areas any time soon. Thanks for your time WormTT 14:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  •   Support no problem. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 14:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rschen7754 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support - Taketa (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Trijnsteltalk 14:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? — Revi 16:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. LlamaAl (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Matiia (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support--DangSunM (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, thanks for helping out! ///EuroCarGT 17:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Mike VTalk 17:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, no objections. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Eurodyne (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, there's no real rename backlog on enwiki as some stewards and global renamers also keep an eye on en:WP:CHUS and en:WP:CHUU. But no objections against the candidate in general. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Hi DerHexer, we don;t have a backlog mostly because of you ;). If you go on vacation we would have delays. Not just on English Wiki but also on meta. We don;t need to wait for a backlog but can fix it before it happens. All the best, Taketa (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    You may be right on-wiki, but there's 4 requests for vanishing sitting in the bureaucrat email queue presently and have been for a few days, they're only looked after by one individual presently. Either way, thank you for your hard work leading the charge on en. WormTT 07:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    Those requests should really be sent to the stewards OTRS queue... --Rschen7754 02:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support. Érico Wouters (msg) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Very trusted user. --Randykitty (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Glad I checked this page! Yes, I'm happy to support Worm That Turned; he has good judgment and I trust him with this userright. Acalamari 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support ~ Nahid Talk 09:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --Florence (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - clear consensus to promote and meets the special provision requirements for reduced discussion. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Global rename for Ruy Pugliesi

Not ending before 24 January 2015 17:34 UTC

Hi, everyone. I've been a bureaucrat in the Portuguese Wikipedia for around four years (from 2009 to 2010 and then from 2012 to date); so, I think I'm experienced enough with renaming issues. I'm also a global sysop and a member of the SWMT. Since there is currently only one native portuguese speaker with the possibility to rename globally, I would like to volunteer myself to the global renamers group and be able to help a bit more again. Thanks, Ruy Pugliesi 17:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests for other global permissions

Global confirmed for global IP block exemptions

Status:    Done

I just noticed that one of my accounts is not autoconfirmed on itwikisource, despite passing the thresholds long time ago. Turns out it's because we use $wgTorAutoConfirmAge and $wgTorAutoConfirmCount to require 90 days and 100 edits (since before gerrit), probably to avoid that one registers and gains autoconfirmed on a non-Tor IP and then uses the privilege via Tor, or something like that.

Given NOP, this restriction doesn't make sense for users which were exempted from TorBlock: they should gain confirmed status on each wiki normally. Given only few wikis require more than 4 days or 0 edits to get autoconfirmed, it would make sense to just compensate TorBlock and give them "confirmed" everywhere; objections? Alternatively, we could at least add skipcatcha, as exempted users are definitely not bots. --Nemo 11:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that there do appear to be at least two bots with the GIPBE flag. Not sure how or if that matters, though. Courcelles 17:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are only concerned with CATCHA, there is a separate global group ('captcha-exempt') for it. Ruslik (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind many bits in one account when you can simplified it? I mean, this is for GIpbe, and I am sure in the future similar case like this will happen again.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 12:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That is not a proper way to solve the problem. Either the 'torunblocked' permission should be modified to exempt users from $wgTorAutoConfirmAge and $wgTorAutoConfirmCount limits or a new userright should be devised to do the same. Ruslik (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this idea makes sense because IMO the primary reason we have "Confirmed/Autoconfirmed" is to have a group of more trustworthy users that are not spammers/vandals, and users with global IPBE are at least as trusted as "Confirmed" users to not edit disruptively. Tony Tan 98 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
So according to thisthis, if we decide to give confirmed to GIPBE, we would assign something like the following to the 'global-ipblock-exempt' global user group:
  • Edit pages protected as "Allow only autoconfirmed users" (editsemiprotected)
*Have one's own revisions automatically marked as "accepted" (autoreview)
*Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol)
  • Move pages (move)
  • Move pages under pending changes (movestable)
  • Not be affected by IP-based rate limits (autoconfirmed)
*Overwrite existing files (reupload)
  • Perform CAPTCHA-triggering actions without having to go through the CAPTCHA (skipcaptcha)
  • Propose new OAuth consumers (mwoauthproposeconsumer)
  • Reset failed or transcoded videos so they are inserted into the job queue again (transcode-reset)
  • Save books as community page in the book namespace (collectionsaveascommunitypage)
  • Save books as user page (collectionsaveasuserpage)
  • Update OAuth consumers you control (mwoauthupdateownconsumer)
*Upload files (upload) (Note: seems like many wikis have this one)
  • View detailed abuse log entries (abusefilter-log-detail)
Tony Tan 98 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
(Modified at 19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC) by Tony Tan 98 (talk) to strike through enwiki-specific rights according to Special:ListGroupRights on meta and bold ones I personally think may be important.)
Enwiki has an unusual set of rights associated with autoconfirmed. We'd probably look at adding editsemiprotected and skipcaptcha. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems like so. I have added strike-throughs to enwiki-specific ones using the list on meta. But should upload, which is not on meta, be included too? Thanks, Tony Tan 98 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment Is this is a personal request for your account, or is this a request for an alteration to the global permissions. If the global permissions, I believe that it should be held as an RFC, not tucked away on SRGP, which is not a general discussion page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

In line with Billinghurst's comment, I've granted your account the skipcaptcha right globally so it should no longer have a problem with those. Further discussion of a general nature should happen on an RFC which is appropriately advertised. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

OTRS-member for several

Please add the following users to the global OTRS-members group:

Thank you. --Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  Done --Melos (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OTRS-member for 2 users

Please add the OTRS-member right to Akl and remove it from JetzzDG. Thanks, --Rjd0060 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done +1, -1  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

OTRS-member removals for several

Can you please remove the OTRS-member permission from the following users:

Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OTRS-member for Ldorfman

Please add Ldorfman to the "OTRS-member" group. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 04:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ruslik. Today I officially joined the team. Ldorfman (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Mjbmr

The following discussion is closed.

I have sysop on fawikinews, and I want global editinterface temperory for one month to help imporving and updating interfaces on other small fa family projects, I'm willing to edit pages like MediaWiki:Recentchangestext which are outdated and creating some other nonexistent edit intro pages, and other stuff like migrating other outdated js pages to use resource loader. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 06:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not what the editinterface group was created for. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what do you mean, see this. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 21:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The technical rights of the group are irrelevant. They are removed and added as needed for the group to perform their functions, what you should be looking at is the policy. Recentchangestext is not part of the purposes of this group, that's an editoral page that's best left to the specific wiki's administrators. An interface editor is a technical role, not an editorial one, and the changes you suggest ought to be performed by local administrators. Snowolf How can I help? 21:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the policy, and I remember we had a separate section for requesting this right on this page, and by showing it right I meant this user group has editinterface right and that means user can edit MediaWiki pages, and of course Recentchangestext is a part of it, by that I meant an example page I'm willing to edit, and that's technical editing, I'm not sure what do you mean. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that's an example of a page interface editors are not supposed to edit, regardless of the technical ability to edit it. Snowolf How can I help? 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
So, what those rights do? let you stare at outdated pages? Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  Not done Community consensus would be required to change those pages and/or by a wiki's local admins. Where no local admins, then stewards can do that task. Please put any suggestions on the pertinent talk pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't get it, it's like you're saying don't help those projects. I'm a tech user. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 06:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
My words gave you the instruction on how to help the communities, and leaving the decisions within the communities of how they have their interface files. Your indistinct request is outside the scope of the right. This is not a decision about you, this is about the purposes that the stewards have to give rights for this unrestrictive and powerful right.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think, the decisions stewards are making here are on their own and on how much they know the person, and there is no rule for that. I had money to spend on the internet to help these projects for a couple of months, I don't have to beg you for these rights, if you knew me you would gave that right, I don't have any word say to you. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 07:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Check this user what he has done with his global right without community consensus. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 07:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If you believe that someone has acted outside the scope of their allocation of rights then please start a conversation to address that concern. It does not belong in your request for rights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Global abusefilter for Nirmos

Hi. I'd like to be able to edit global abuse filters. I have experience with regex in general and abuse filters in particular. I could easily come up with a generic solution for this kind of spam. Nirmos (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate any experience with using the extension elsewhere on Wikimedia? --Rschen7754 02:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Rschen7754, I have 610 filter edits on sv.wikipedia as you can see here. Nirmos (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Only stewards have the rights to edit global abuse filters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Billinghurst, that's not true. See Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/abusefilter. Nirmos (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Werdna doesn't count, he is the designer of the abuse filters and is staff and had the right before stewards. The implementation decision was that only stewards have global abuse filter rights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC where we could discuss whether we want non-stewards to be able to edit global abusefilters. --Glaisher (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Technical 13

  • Here we are a month later after my last request. I've been using the Templateeditor userright without complaint and working on developing a few of my own scripts. I'd still like to request this permission to be able to work on updating uses of addOnloadHook(), addPortletLink(), and wgVariables that aren't using mw.config.get() as they should be. Since I'd like to work on fixing these issues on MW, commons, meta, and enwp, I figured the best way for me to go is to come here and request this user group. I will happily sandbox all changes that I intend to make to these scripts and test them in all skins on all browsers they are expected to work in that I have access to, confirming the the fixes don't actually break anything. Thank you for your consideration. {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • From the global policy: „Interface editors should avoid making routine changes to the interface on larger wikis without prior agreement. Projects with established communities and processes for maintaining scripts should be avoided.“
    Since you intend to mainly edit such large wikis, could you provide evidence they want you to make use of the global editinterface right rather than of local rights? Otherwise I don't see how this could be possibly approved, as out of scope. Vogone (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't classify making fixes to scripts to address Phab:T35837 as "routine" since they are one time fixes and not something that will need to be maintained. {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For such a powerful right, I would not expect to see something like concerns about interactions that were expressed at [1]. --Rschen7754 02:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    I have no care over the raised discussion, I just do not see that we should or need to grant this right with regard to the major wikis, at least without their endorsement of the request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced this user knows enough about the way JavaScript (and the JS libraries we use) works yet. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 17:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This request is clearly out of scope, per Vogone above. I also remain unconvinced that this user is a suitable candidate for the right, per concerns raised by myself and others at the user's previous requests (July 2014, December 2014). I am not sure that the user's perspective and attitude has changed since the edit warring that led to their removal as template editor on enwiki six or so months ago and that prompted an enwiki bureaucrat to make this statement about their behavior. Snowolf How can I help? 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 I also slightly agree with the disagree with the given reason above below (per Rillke). -- ↔ User: Perhelion 00:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the scope issue also. The candidate - I'm torn about, Technical 13 is technically capable, but their interactions with other users can be challenging. I think I'd be happy for them to receive the right (assuming a need is demonstrated) after they've had the English Wikipedia Template Editor user right for six months without serious/significant problems, the right being withdrawn again etc. Nick (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned during the last request, I am fine with Technical 13 being granted temporary use of these rights to perform the specified task. However, I can understand the desire to get local approval first - if that could be done, then I would have no reservations about this request. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Since Technical 13 is capable and will do a simple find & replace operation, preview every diff and approve it by hand and properly test whether their changes worked, I am confident that nothing will break; instead breakage is avoided. However, Technical 13 should be careful about edit summaries (citing specific, not generic tracking task numbers). -- Rillke (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know about anyone else, but--apart from any reservations I may or may not have about T13 themself--I am quite uncomfortable with the task T13 is proposing. As a script author, I would be extremely uncomfortable with anyone editing else editing my scripts directly. While of course I don't own the script, the fact remains that, since my name is on them by virtue of the userspace they're in, I'm morally responsible for them. I make enough bugs on my own; I do not want to be responsible for others' bugs, made without my knowledge, as well. Again, this isn't particularly a reflection on T13; this is a general statement that I have quite strong negative feelings about this task. Strongly enough that I would probably full-protect my user scripts on enwiki to prevent at least non-admins from editing them, or if this were to become a standard thing, delete them entirely. I'm only speaking for myself here, of course, but the thing is that this isn't a particularly necessary task in any circumstances. User scripts are never mission-critical; there's no urgency to fix them, as their failure doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything they need to do. So, there's no urgency for this task that requires someone other than the script author to make the changes. Writ Keeper (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Full protection would do nothing, as users in this group can edit anything, even on closed wikis. --Rschen7754 14:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 per Rillke, but -1 if the target wikis are "[,] commons, meta, and enwp" because I'm not interested in handling maintenance as part of Steward requests. I'd surely +1 if he used the flag exclusively on the wikis without any sysops: that's certainly more useful and would also be an occasion to (get better and) address concerns about technical skills. --Nemo 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've started processing what needs to be done. I've posted requests on the talk pages of all possibly affected scripts on meta, commons, mw, enwp, and simple so far to try and get the users who's userspace the scripts are in to update the scripts themselves per Writ Keepers concern above. In the process of doing so, I've created a new {{JS migration}} template on each wiki that categorizes all of those talk pages that haven't had their |done=no changed to |done=yes into a category of Category:JavaScripts using deprecated elements ( commons | mw | enwp | simple ). I plan on going through the rest of the English speaking wikis like wikt:en:, species:en:, wikidata:, wikinews:en:, etc as well. The reason I'm starting with the English wikis is because I want to be able to help people fix their own scripts, and I wanted to start where I am able to communicate with the editors if they should have questions. {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have looked at this request on whether I could close it, one way or the other. The more I read, the more I had my own reflections, especially in the space as a wikizen of a sister community. That community has less availability of the technical skills and there is value for us in the assistance offered. I also see the comment from scripters about the responsibility they feel to the scripts they write and others use. I would like to see the the tasks undertaken and the improvements made, though I would like to see a process of approaching the communities through their noticeboards or if none, then VPs. I would be in favour as long as there is permission sought by community, and allow communities to decline.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • billinghurst, I'm absolutely willing to make any accommodations requested. I just want to make these deprecations known so they can be fixed and offer my technical skills in fixing them where is needed. Thank you. - {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  Not done no consensus to grant this right. Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Global abusefilter-helper for Jimmy Xu

I'm currently a sysop on zhwiki. Occasionally we steal filters from other projects, and some time after when it's not behaving well the original filter had gone private and we have to invent the wheels again. I'm in abusefilter group on enwiki just for this purpose, and since not all wikis have the equivalent group, a global read-only for private filters would help a lot. Thanks. Jimmy Xu (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I support this request, though I'm honestly tempted to just grant the rights. These are passive (view-only) rights which can cause no damage in the hands of trusted users with a valid rationale for using them. Would anyone object to these rights being granted without a discussion in cases like this? Ajraddatz (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Vogone (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see a set of criteria of what is expected to qualify for the right, and the reason for it being granted. If we have the measure, and the user can present the justification then I have no issue with the right being granted by a steward without extended discussion. If a person does not meet the default criteria set, or the reason is weak, then we can ask for a broader discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree; there needs to be a definition what are "cases like this". --MF-W 00:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
We can't just use common sense here? Fine lol. I'll work on a proposal and recuse myself from closing this discussion. People should feel free to vote on this specific case, and I will link a general discussion when I make it. Thanks for the input. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: my point was more that if we have a set of criteria then we can make it easy to judge and quickly assign worthy cases. A fast track process. Otherwise we have these interminable conversations (slow track) as we have little history, and ebb and flow of conversation and uncertainty whether it is a vote or not. For what it is worth ... sense is never common  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 The scope is well defined so the request is fine. In general, however, we must be sure not to work around the real issue, i.e. that most of the filters so generic as to serve multiple wikis 1) shouldn't be private in the first place, 2) should be handled on Meta. In shorts: good to facilitate, but also to talk with abusefilter managers around. --Nemo 08:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  Done conversation open 1+ week; no dissension to granting the right; assume consensus with positive comment; existing xwiki history of user; holder of advanced rights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)