Open main menu

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for DARIO SEVERI

Not ending before 25 April 2016 06:16 UTC

I have been editing since 2011 and I am currently a rollbacker in the English, Italian and Spanish. I am also a sysop in Portuguese Wikipedia with 14,000 administrative actions. Most of my 51,000 editions as editor is reverting vandalism or minor corrections in articles. Lately I have been active in reversing vandalism in several other Wikipedias. I would be grateful if you would consider me for the Global rollback flag. Any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am focusing my edits to revert vandalism in just over 50 wikis, because I do not see in Global rollback policy a minimum number, it cites only that the users must demonstrate heavy use of revert on many wikis. Excluding my home wiki (pt) I have over 10,000 edicts (cross-wiki experience) and thousands are related to vandalism (please see (en), (fr), (nl), (simple), (tr), (ca), (es), (it), etc. wikipedias). DARIO SEVERI (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
All the wikis you mention there are so-called big wikis, mostly with own governance of the rollback permission. --Vogone (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support good experience.-BRP ever 06:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Holder (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Defender (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, trusted user. It is very active in projects. -ks Talk 22:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC).
  •   Support. Activity is ok and it has been demonstrated. Besides, there are no concerns whatsoever in my opinion. Keep up the good work. RadiX 03:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -FASTILY 03:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, for now. I see reverts on less than 60 wikis. Matiia (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, trusted and active. Érico (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, no concerns here.--HakanIST (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support seems fine. xaosflux Talk 02:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, K'n-yan (msg) 09:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Matiia. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per Matiia, activity is insufficient as of now. Please keep up the work and I will happily reconsider in case of a later application. --Vogone (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support he's present on it.wiki and a trusted user; tools like global rollbacking exist to be used, not as acknowledgement for some past work: if he will not use it, just remove--Shivanarayana (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above, I think his experiences in the SWMT area is currently not high enough. --MF-W 14:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support it would be better if they had more SWMT experience but I see no problems. Reguyla (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, would like to see more activity, for longer time, many of your edits on your non-homewiki projects were made very recently, and most of them weren't undoing. --Stryn (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --James970028 (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose, per Stryn, would be happy to support later after gaining some more cross-wiki experience. Thanks for your contributions.—Ah3kal (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support has considerable xwiki experience reverting past language barriers, even if they aren't active with the SWMT. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Probably would be okay with the tool considering other userrights but most of the crosswiki activity isn't reverts. --Rschen7754 05:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose per MF-W. Plus, I couldn't see heavy use of reverts globally.[1]--Infinite0694 (Talk) 14:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per all other opposes. eurodyne (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support trusted user active on a large number of projects. Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It is sysop in pt.wiki, so there is confidence that the tool will use well. -- Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support very constructive user, will make good use of the tool.--Druddigon (talk | contributions) 21:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think 60 wikis is an unreasonable number of wiki's to be active on for this user right. User can be trusted. Music1201 talk 02:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, 60 wikis is a really big number. I don't see any real issue. Also, some language skills are promising, he can probably deal with almost all romance languages in case of cross-wiki emergency. I also know the guy, seemed trusted too. In any case if the flag is not approved now, I would suggest to reapply after a while once you have more activity on non-homewiki projects.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
No clear consensus, Please feel free to re apply later when you gain more experience.--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
sorry Shanmugamp7, we probably conflicted but I got no warning. Not the my support was the "crucial" one in any case.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Shanmugamp7: 20-8-1 (s-o-n) is a clear consensus. This user should actually been given the global rollback flag already. Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Imho 71% is not a clear consensus. The passing benchmark for a RfA on most wikis is 75%. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"Stewards will determine whether consensus exists; when doing so it is likely that the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential" (quoted from the header). Among this group of users, it can be seen quite clearly there is no consensus to grant this at the moment. --Vogone (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95 and Jianhui67: Please note, This is not a vote. The support comments were not convincing enough to grant the flag, while there are many oppose comments with proper rationale and they are specific to this flag --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I (reluctantly) agree with Shanmugamp7's rationale. When weighing the opinions of those who are active in cross-wiki work, it does appear that there is no consensus. However, I am slightly disappointed that this request didn't pass, given the fact that the candidate clearly knows when to click rollback and would most likely not misuse or abuse the rights. To @DARIO SEVERI: thanks for volunteering, and please continue to be involved in xwiki work and maybe re-apply after gaining more of the experience that the individuals above are requesting :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all that support my application ... but get more rollback experience is a joke. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe the opposes referred to getting more experience in rollbacking across different projects. Dismissing it as a joke doesn't really seem fair, though. Savhñ 22:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this request still open? The status saying 'not done' through.--DangSunM (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's closed as not done... --Stryn (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Global rollback for Максим Підліснюк

Not ending before 29 May 2016 16:52 UTC

I am the sysop of two projects (one of which is small), a member of SWMT, and I think that the global rollback permissons would help me in my work --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC).
  •   Support. AHercog (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. Adam-Yourist (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is the 4th time that you are asking for GR flag and i still have concerns regarding crosswiki activity. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you just do not see? For example, my last cross-wiki editing? --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
See here, automated edits are included. If you remove them only a few recent edits are remaining. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing much experience either. I can also find some mistakes, like this, though that is older and I can't find anything recent. That said, there is more since last time, so I would be comfortable supporting. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Visem (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, by far does not meet the criteria outlined in the policy, as per Steinsplitter. --Vogone (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Some concerns here. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - honestly, this is starting to smell like hat collecting. Natuur12 (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above concerns, and the fact that this is request #4 should have been disclosed. --Rschen7754 00:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. ~riley (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. Biplab Anand (Talk) 01:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral because I don't want to stack opposes. Thanks for volunteering for the global rollback privilege, however, it seems that you are not yet qualified for this kind of privilege. First, due to lack of crosswiki activity. Global rollbackers should have sufficient crosswiki activity. Second, lack of trust due to lack of transparency. For a user to be a global rollbacker, they should have the trust of the community. Otherwise, they won't be confident of you performing global rollback. Once you solved the two concerns I said above, you may reapply for global rollback. Thank you! Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing seems to have changed since the previous request -FASTILY 03:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Steinsplitter. —Ah3kal (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done. Unfortunately there's too much opposition to grant you the global rollback rights. --Stryn (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Global rollback for BRPever

Not ending before 30 May 2016 10:39 UTC

Hello everyone, I am a member of SWMT and I usually patrol various GS projects and revert many vandalism and nonsense. This permission will be helpful for me to continue my work of patrolling and reverting vandalism. Thanks-BRP ever 10:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support good work end good antivandal activity . Devraj poudel (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support clearly has made heavy use of revert across multiple wikis. I've checked over 15 recent reverts, and all 15 were good. Looks like a good candidate; thanks for volunteering! Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Why not? Jianhui67 talkcontribs 22:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm a little surprised by User:Ajraddatz's comment because crossactivity indicates a complete lack of recent activity. Is the tool broken? Unless it is, the candidate clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in the policy. --Vogone (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    Looking through his global contribs, I see a whole bunch of reverts in late 2015 and 2016. Those 55 results go back only to the start of 2016. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, indeed it seems there has been some activity, but it's limited to only a few days, only a few wikis were edited, and there is no real recent activity either (not even the days immediately before this request). This does neither look like "heavy use" nor like "demonstrated activity" to me and thus makes me unable to support. I suggest resubmitting a request after this has been fixed. --Vogone (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
regarding this I was quite busy in the datathon and women edit athon conducted in newiki for a month but now it is over I am now back for the vandal fight.-BRP ever 23:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vogone. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vogone, I'd expect recent activity before requesting. ~riley (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I withdraw but will be back with more crosswiki.-BRP ever 00:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for Suchichi02

Because of the variable IP of my network operators, I may be assigned to an IP that is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis and the reason given is leaky colo + open proxy at 45.32.89.47. It says the expiration of block is 19:32, 6 April 2021 but I can't wait so long. So I want the global IP block exemption, thanks, --Suchichi02 (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please let us know if/when you no longer need it. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Ivannah

The reason for blocking is "Cross-wiki spam: spambot". Global block by @RadiX:: Must be an error - so I request the global IP block exemption, thanks. --Ivannah (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ivannah:, can you please e-mail us the details of the block to stewards wikimedia.org? Savhñ 07:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Block downgraded. Savhñ 21:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Techyan

Due to the bad Internet connection in my country, connecting to wikimedia projects without proxy is too slow for editing, patrolling, or uploading files. I have global IP block exemption right in Chinese Wikipedia, but IP blockage still obstructs me when editing other wikis. So a global IP block exemption would be very useful for me. Thanks. --Techyan (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support: trust user at zhwp,and active in a lot of wikis.-- QTalk with me」`
  •   Support: trusted user. ┌─⚡⠠⠵[learningis1st]-[~]- time = 14:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment:雖說是修改筆誤,也沒有這樣的吧。Orz...-- QTalk with me」 14:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support,Looks good.--Stang 06:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment, BTW, IP blockage still obstructs me when editing other wikis, sometimes you should request a local IPBE.--Stang 06:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  Done ~ Nahid Talk 06:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Yangzd88

  Support.--Stang 12:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Please note that this will only exempt you from global blocks; if you are affected by local ones you will need to request local IPBE flags. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for RinCat0w0

I am using personal servers (with dedicated IP) as VPN to bypass China's firewall and prevent potential attacks from public network(e.g. public WiFi). However,those IPs had been blocked due to they are in the globe web host provider IP range. I already have zh-wp local IP block exemption, but I cannot editing other languages articles. So, I apply global IP block exemption, thanks, --RinCat0w0 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Please note that this will only exempt you from global blocks; if you are affected by local ones you will need to request local IPBE flags. Linedwell (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for UT-interwiki-Bot

I want to run my interwiki bot UT-interwiki-Bot on a Linux server which has an IP that is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis and the reason given is "leaky colo + open proxy at 37.17.224.28" (see here: made at 23 January 2016 by Vituzzu). Perhaps it is possible to "downgrade" the existing block from "37.17.224.0/21" to "37.17.224.0/24"?? If not, then please give UT-interwiki-Bot the global IP block exemption. --Udo T. (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vituzzu. Ruslik (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I have asked Vituzzu on his talk page, too, if it's possible to reduce the range of the block, which he has set. --Udo T. (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
As Vituzzu replied to my talk page, I believe that Vituzzu not want to limit the range of the IP block. --Udo T. (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  Done for now and I've notified Vituzzu as well. ~ Nahid Talk 10:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for RobokoBot

Hi there, I'd like to do some tests with Wiktionary interwiki links with my bot before asking for the global bot flag, but its IP range (DigitalOcean) is blocked globally. Would it be possible to give my bot the global IPBE flag? It already have the local flag on three wikis. Thanks. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Savhñ 14:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Lenka Lyalikoff

Dear stewards, we've received a request for help with a global IP block. Since the blocked user doesn't speak English and there aren't any Czech-speaking stewards among you, she has reached us at OTRS so that I can forward the message to you. Unfortunately, OTRS doesn't allow the agent to forward any e-mail to stewards@wikimedia.org.

DerHexer's global block of an IP range (29th May to 29th August, OTRS agents may see it in ticket:2016053010016432, I'm not enclosing the IP adress here because of privacy protection - she's using her real name as username so I don't think it's wise to share her IP address publicly) has affected cs:Special:Contributions/Lenka Lyalikoff who is a long-time and very valuable contributor of the Czech Wikipedia (over 5000 edits and even a couple of barnstars), also active on various other projects. I've made Lenka Lyalikoff an IP block exemption on the Czech Wikipedia where I serve as an admin. However, I'm not able to change it anywhere else - most notably Czech Wikibooks and Commons.

I can assure you that there were absolutely no signs of abuse from this user account. Please let me know if there's something else I or the affected user have to do in order to get a global IP block exemption for her.

Best regards, --Michal Bělka (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (Czech Wikipedia sysop, info-cs OTRS agent)

Not need anymore, the global block was adjusted so that this account should not be affected anymore. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Requests for global rename permissions

Global rename for FocalPoint

Not ending before 15 May 2016 15:02 UTC

Hi, another user thought it would be a good idea to invite me to become a global renamer. I reviewed and translated the Global rename policy to Greek. It seems simple enough so I do not mind giving a helping hand to the global renamers' team. I am based in el-wiki (sysop) but I am also contributing on several wikis. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any experience with the global rename progress? You wrote here that you have a (long) to-do list, you have time for renaming users? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Steinsplitter, I can guarantee that I will not be in the top 10% of the list, but I am pretty sure that I will not be in the bottom 10% either. Nevertheless, I clearly remember the time when I thought that contributing in en and el-wiki was enough. Otherwise, I am not sure if I understand about your question. A literal reply, is: I am not aware of the global rename progress (if the progress is reported somewhere, and I suppose it must be somewhere, please show me where). If you mean global rename pro"c"ess, then I have seen the requests and replies on the local bureaucrat's noticeboard. Since I do not have the right to rename locally, this is the experience I have. If I did not reply to your question, please explain. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral A global renamed must have enough time to respond to requests, even though the user is trusted for permission. -- Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support no big difference compared to previous candidates (some were not cross active, some had limited language skills, some didn't even help to translate guidelines, some were only local sysops or not even that). Actually slightly more experienced than some of the previous candidates we approved. So the only "concern" is the "expected" level of activity? you can't process intentions and BTW that's not even a "concern". Look at the stats and you can easily expect that with the current level of motivation, (s)he 's gonna be more active than half of the people who have the flag now. Overthinking this aspect has no real advantage. We should start to appreciate people who are honest about their level of activity, and there is no problem in not being in the top 10% considering a part of recent GRs are not (should I cite some name :D ?). I don't think these are the concerns we need to grow as a community mainly because they're not consistent, but we sure need more "local" users acting as a bridge with the meta level.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    As part of the transition, we approved quite a lot local bureaucrats without further requirements. This has been done for reasons. Since, I think most successful applications were submitted by users who have already shown some involvement in the renaming process on their respective homewikis. I don't see how crosswiki experience matters here, rather previous involvement in the renaming process does. --Vogone (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    We accepted two it-N Global renamers that had basically no experience with global renaming. One had been recently elected bureaucrat because of my suggestion, but it was after the SUL. Jianhui67 was not a a bureaucrat anywhere, but he only " have read and understood all the various relevant rename policies" and wanted to help. Mys_721tx was only "great at following manuals and have read those related policies"... They were all successful. after all it is juts a GR flag. BTW according to previous selections crosswiki experience may matter as one of the critical issues (not for me, BTW). But the core point is that there is no big difference between this candidate and those of this last year, overall. I strongly encourage everyone to look at the archives. Vogone, you are usually critical but untill now, the mass was not. Just to prove: I am not inventing anything here :) --Alexmar983 (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Do not trust this user. Not bound by policies when they conflict with his own visions. No guarantee he won't bend GR policy too when convenient—Ah3kal (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
that's a critical issue. I don't know how you can bend a GR policy (forcing a rename?) and where is the convenience, but if you link a situation where (s)he misbehaved I will look carefully. I can understand modern Greek.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ah3kal that FocalPoint's most favorite policy is Ignore All Rules. Forcing or just accepting a rename that should not be accepted, is a possibility. --Geraki TL 05:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
still, i would prefer a link.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree Alexmar983, a link would be very useful. Geraki has been very quick to support his accusation of canvassing against ManosHacker by offering a link (BTW no such issue, see my comment below), however for this question a link is nowhere to be seen.--Saintfevrier (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
An example of abuse and double standards: Has an altar dedicated to a user with dozens and dozens of accounts, who occationally trolled and abused those accounts then he indefblocks my 2 perfectly legitimate, aknowledged and in good standing old accounts and claims that this is the common practice! and challenges the community saying "shall I search for examples?", (well the only [counter]example, given by others, was, of course, his altar). Never acknowledged the wrongdoing.
An example of missinterpreting core policies: In a deletion request, he replies to a new user that the sources policy does not discriminate sources, only to retract after I commented the obvious fact that there is a core discrimination over reliable and not reliable sources.—Ah3kal (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I have seen these different opinions happen all the time, basically everywhere not just on small community. If you want me to have a clear opinion show me the related guidelines. if they are not clear or not present, you can't blame him. I didn't blame here on meta people I knew did exactly similar things at the local level. I still think that two GR flags, especially if different in style, will increase communication, which will lead to clear guidelines and knowledge, which will lead to a much more limited double standard. At the moment with the general lack of communication between meta and the local level (few description pages, clear dissatisfaction at the local level, just read around) you are in fact much more exposed to double standards. You point the person, but if you don't change the system, nothing changes: that's not the root of the problem.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Alexmar983. You don't need to become a supercomputer to become a global renamer. Activity is not a concern in global renaming. This is not a RfA. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {{support}} per Alexmar983. It would be good to have a Greek GR. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
another one, we have one el-N, Geraki as far as I remember, not "top" active. Not blaming him/her, maybe there is no a lot of activity but still 2 GRs provide a much better coverage, in the end. On some platforms FocalPoint has less flags but it is more active than Geraki. If FocalPoint will not be accepted, I hope a second one will arrive soon or later.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record: I (geraki) usually take care of rename requests made through el.wikipedia. Little activity is not the result of boredom but due to the small number of requests and the great effort of other global renamers here on meta: the queue most times is empty. Also, sometimes a request should be declined, and this is not logged in meta special page. I do not think that there will be a difference in the process regarding requests made from greek users or any other language, by having one or ten more greek renamers. -Geraki TL 05:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
better does not mean that the previous is bad; if we had two el-N I would not think a third one is crucial, but the difference between 1 and 2 allow a more constant presence. that's not just with Greek language. A second GR can help in local if the other one is not available (are you on holiday sometimes? what if you are very busy on OTRS?) or can help on meta, depending on the situation. You saw that with the translation of the guideline: he had the time, you didn't in all this months.
Just to give a comparative idea: there are 13 millions people in the world who speak Greek, 22-28 millions speak Dutch. Forgive me if in terms of users the proportion is not as perfect, I should add up all the active users of platforms, but that's a very mobile data. The biggest core of Dutch speaker lives in country where the knowledge of English or French or German is much higher than Greece. nl-users are much more cross active than el-N users too. We probably don't need a lot of nl-N Global Renamers. Yet, we have 1 nl-4 and 3 nl-N with global renamer flags. Swedish speakers are even a lower amount, less than 10 millions, they have a good English knowledge overall and we have 3 sv-N users with GR flags. Are those sv-N and nl-N users doing something else? Probably. does this bother us? Not really. So why not having two el-N GRs especially if both of them have a good English knowledge? That's how i saw it.
In any case, concentrating flags on just on single user is not a good thing on the long term. One aspect of a balanced wikimedia activity is trying to be non-relevant. The more you allow other people to do what you're doing, the more you can use your experience to do new and different things. that's how a system grows. Even if he is not Focalpoint, a second el-N GR would be a good thing.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
What I meant is that there is no backlog for greek users here in meta or elwiki, and the comparative analysis is not only missing points: Knowledge of English seems much higher in Greece, and most Greeks read and edit mainly English wikipedia rather the Greek one [2] That's why I say that the language issue is moot. Of course having one or two more el-N renamers would not do harm, but it would not create a change in the essence of what you suggest. Even if it would be crucial, FocalPoint edits only in weekends and holidays, with not much crosswiki activity compared to other el-N users, so you would need a third one. But I have also expressed my concerns about his doubtful adherence to any rule, procedural or not. If we really want more el-N users there could be found more hopeful proposals. -Geraki TL 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
it may be higher in Greece than other countries but not than Sweden or Netherlands. I worked at the E.U., you kinda know that. I touched with my hands. In any case you have some problem in elwiki if your potential users go somewhere else, luckily for you that link is for visiting not editing, which is a slightly different concept, especially after so many years that wiki exists and the introduction of smartphone. In any case I think that you should have put a part of the energy you are using here in translating GR pages and finding a more hopeful proposal in those years. Dealing all the backlog just one person is not an ideal situation in a cooperative environment, and as a expert user you should be the first to know. In any case having two el-N GR will make the situation of the Greek language similar to other ones, that is a difference. It is not moot, even for simple tasks we still have type "A" languages which are overrepresented and more in charge of general maintenance (that's what it is, in the end) and type "B" language where apparently one is enough, like the black guy in a some US sit-coms.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  Neutral Now I have some concerns. Not very sure. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 08:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dan Koehl (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --DangSunM (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems like this is an altogether bad idea. I feel sorry for this user who was talked into candidating under the pretence that there would be an urgent need or whatever. Geraki's comments demonstrate very well that such a need actually doesn't exist. There are more than enough global renamers and all this "it would be good to have a renamer speaking language XYZ" cannot be the decisive (or only) argument for why someone should be elected. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the "global rename requests queue" contains all requests together, it's not separated by languages and most renamers act on all requests they see. That's because for most rename requests, no language skills whatsoever are needed. — Additionally, the oppose from Ah3kal based on this user's attitude towards policies (confirmed by Geraki) makes me very unconvinced that he is a fitting choice for being a G. Renamer. --MF-W 00:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
read his talk. "urgent need or whatever" is not correct, I wrote That's probably enough, although if you look at the stats he is not one of the most active, so maybe a second el-N might not be a bad idea. and also you can ask around o other GRs if you wan to be sure about the task. In any case he is quite ok with it, again look at the talk, so don't fell sorry. If there is really bad idea here is to openly contradict the past nominations, where improving the cover of certain languages has been considered one key factor. Now we can say it is no more one of the aspects but what will happen next? Another contradiction with limited "historical depth"? This is like the activity request, many new GR are barely active but suddenly it is an "issue"? We can flip-flop here but the final result is that probably we will skip candidates, current will soon or later become less active and than we will have "emergencies" and we will maybe nominate someone even less skilled. Or maybe someone that has a critical user's attitude, so bad that there is even a link to show immediately. But there will be an emergency and noone won't have time to look for it, as they barely have now, apparently. So we won't know. And in the end that person will be even more relevant. In any case I can go personally in the talks of people I left similar message and cite this discussion. I won't stop to tell them. I do once in a while and I am not the only one, many candidates were suggested. And we don't want few people to be the one that "suggest" do we? It is not very wiki.... we want to put everyone in the condition to suggest to apply. Stating very strong generic sentences in contradiction with previous procedures is not a great start, but we can improve.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As with MF-W, I don't see a strong need to have x number of renamers per language. All requests are handled centrally, and it is generally very easy for existing renamers to check to ensure that the requested name is appropriate regardless of language. There have also been no demonstrable issues with this. On the candidate specifically, the concerns of Ah3kal make me think that this is not the best candidate for this role. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I am trying to get people back in Greek Wikipedia giving lessons for free four times/week voluntarily for two years now, and teaching and promoting Wikipedia since 2011. A very respected percent of Greek Wikipedia contributions comes after this work. I am in favor of FocalPoint.--ManosHacker (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Canvassing?   -Geraki TL 18:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Is the posting of meta news in the Greek Village pump canvassing? I don't think so... non-Greek Wikimedians do it all the time: the only purpose in both cases is to notify the community of an important issue that would not otherwise reach its target audience. Personally I am grateful that ManosHacker posted in the Pump. I hope your "Oppose" friends are equally as grateful  --Saintfevrier (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
it is canvassing, but just for the tone, if the sentence have been more neutral it would have been ok. And the result is the same, probably you have more even opposite because of that. I don't care if it is used against this procedure (I am here only again because I was pinged), but I am glad because it does prove that el-N users are concerned about a second GR and communication on meta. No surprise, even considering that Changing username and en:Wikipedia:Changing username were never translated too. This are also long-term effects of lack of information. Although what I get is the general impression that the "local" community is fragmented if not quarrelsome. When this happens it is not a solution at the meta level to just remove the symptoms, we should be aware that they are not the cause, and you are not curing anything. If this huge investment of "energy" can happen on a GR, God knows what could happen on more sensitive matters.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Xaris333 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support FocalPoint is a highly experienced Wikipedian and I find him to be very trustworthy, while at the same time I think that the concerns that have been expressed so far to the contrary to be exaggerated. He is also a regular contributor in several other Wikimedia foundation projects, and as such, him having global rename permissions will certainly help towards taking care of this part of the wikimedia projects workload. Plus, it's always helpful to have an extra GR user with this ability. Gts-tg (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until now, I abstained from giving a comment on this, but to me there are too many concerns and I have to agree with MF-Warburg, too. --Vogone (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. --Rschen7754 00:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Also very concerned about the canvassing (which it is canvassing, as it was targeted at a specific part of the global electorate rather than at everyone who is eligible to vote). --Rschen7754 18:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that FocalPoint is more than an experinced Wikipedian but a user with significant contributions and highly respected in the Greek Wikipedia. Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, I agree with Alexmar983. K'n-yan (msg) 16:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Do not be discouraged by Geraki's and Ah3kal's reservations: If Community Health is important to the movement (and I know it is, after visiting the special booth at last year's Wikimania in Mexico City), you will not find a Greek Wikipedia admin more aligned with this vision than FocalPoint. --Saintfevrier (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Even though global renames don't require any language skills, I still personally abstain from processing requests made in other languages, as I will probably be unable to communicate with the user if clarification is needed. And speaking of clarification, what if I need to decline the request because the username is unacceptable? Having a diversity of global renamers is needed because, as our name implies, it's global. Not just all of Wikimedia, but all of the world. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Vogone and pointing out an election at a location where you could reasonably know that it won't attract a random sample fits my definition of canvassed. Natuur12 (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Vogone and Natuur12. ~riley (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Is chronic sysop (el-wikipedia) in and believe it can properly manage this role (i dond speake good english) --tony esopiλέγε 04:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, canvassing for Global Rename is not appropriate -FASTILY 08:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Fastily he is not the person who was canvassing but another user. Why to punish FocalPoint for someone else actions? Xaris333 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly: he is not the one to be accused of "canvassing" (and in my opinion there was NO canvassing to begin with, not even by User:ManosHacker. I would really appreciate if someone showed me a policy of what is and what is not canvassing on Wikipedia because I am afraid this discussion is now out of hand. It's a serious accusation and not one user has indicated a Wikipedia policy that has been violated, they just keep going on and on, promoting their own personal opinions - which we all have - as "policy". Please show us the policy: if I'm not mistaken the "canvassing" talk was started by User:Geraki here on Meta and originally started by User:Kalogeropoulos in the Greek village pump. Gentlemen, if you're going to disrupt community health once again, at least do so by supporting your arguments:!!!)--Saintfevrier (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no policy on canvassing here, nor would some document written through consensus of five or six meta regulars be more important than the discussion going on here. The people who take issue with canvassing see it as a problem because it undermines the process of reviewing the candidate through a neutral and objective standpoint, by inviting in users with a bias towards the candidate to try and overrule the process. Nevertheless, this isn't an issue here, because this is not a vote but rather a discussion, meaning that arguments will be taken into account when closing it. So people invited in from other wikis who say things like "he is my friend and I like him" won't be adding as much to the "yes" argument as someone with a well-reasoned opposing rationale, for example. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per above .Grind24 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. There is no shortage of renamers, so it makes sense to be cautious with appointments. I have concerns with canvassing and also feel that this is not an area for someone who appears to be quick to IAR. WJBscribe (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment At 18:30 of 6 May 2016 there was the only vote before pointing out for canvassing here, at 18:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC). Everyone else since then, has read comments and votes and voted with awareness. Additionally, the editor who voted before the commenting for canvassing came back and supported his vote. 4 more editors have come from Greek Wikipedia, seen the opposals and decided to support FocalPoint for their reason. We have an administrator, a twice Wikimaniac, a long-time contributing editor and a short time contributing editor who stated their trust to Focalpoint even after pointing out canvassing. If anyone should know FocalPoint, this is Greek Wikipedians. There is also no reality in that only supporters of FocalPoint would read here after the public calling. Especially while pointing out for canvassing is also in Greek Village Pump since less than an hour after the calling. Voting here, since then, under the excuse for canvassing makes me wonder what really canvassing is.--ManosHacker (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Manos, my sentiments exactly! Since when is posting an issue on Meta to the local Village Pump canvassing? It is a public space, free and open to all users whether they support or oppose. May I also point out that the Wikimedia Foundation encourages IEG grant candidates to post their proposal to as many public spaces (village pump, community portals, mailing lists etc.) as possible to invite their peers to comment on their proposal: indeed, I followed this advice in September after submitting my Wikitherapy IEG proposal and posted my page to the Wikipedia Village Pump. Naturally I was seeking support; that doesn't mean that a reader wasn't free to express his contempt for my work either on the comments page, or on the Village Pump (which did happen BTW when I announced that my grant proposal was approved: an anonymous user made a ironic remark about how I am getting paid to do work that HE does as a volunteer... to which I replied politely that anyone is free to submit a grant proposal and that I am proud the WMF has shown their confidence in my project). Posting in a space as public as the Village Pump can elicit both positive and negative reactions. The "tone" of support that Alexmar983 pointed out in another part of this discussion is expressed by a mere exclamation mark. Meanwhile, the same post has attracted scores of users to this page who report "canvassing" as an argument for their "oppose" vote. Wonder how they got here... Bottom line: canvassing in public wikis works both ways, and I am sure that ALL of you are well aware of the fact. So let us drop the nonsense and focus on the essence, shall we? --Saintfevrier (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"If anyone should know FocalPoint, this is Greek Wikipedians." You realize that this is a global right that affects more than the Greek Wikipedia, right? --Rschen7754 18:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. We know by heart and you are being blinded by inappropriate accusations against which you should be very concerned. So please provide a link to the qualities someone must have to be a truely good global renamer.--ManosHacker (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
"you are being blinded by inappropriate accusations" Well, I don't think so, and I'm particularly offended by that comment, as a former steward. If you look through my votes on all the wikis I participate in (English Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, and here), I call things as I see them, including canvassing [3]. As far as other concerns, legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the user's activity and willingness to follow policy, which I happen to agree with. Discarding those concerns with "If anyone should know FocalPoint, this is Greek Wikipedians"... well, I will withhold what I was going to say on that. --Rschen7754 06:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The steward's eyes might not see all or know all. If you do, I have no more to say.--ManosHacker (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Close as no consensus. 83.220.237.213 07:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  Not done, there are various concerns listed here, and there is no consensus to grant global renaming rights. Nonetheless, thank you for volunteering to assist. Savhñ 13:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Requests for other global permissions

remove global OTRS-member for DixonD

Thx. --Krd 17:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Linedwell (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

add global OTRS-member for EuroCarGT

Thx. --Krd 09:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid Talk 10:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Aleposta

thanks, --Krd 07:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Global editinterface for MusikAnimal

I am one of the authors of Pageviews Analysis, which is linked to from interface pages on an estimated 100+ wikis (I have a list). These links use the fragment identifier to pass in parameters, which I would like to change to a more sensible query string, using ? instead of #. There are several reasons for this, but mostly just to avoid common confusion. Going wiki to wiki making protected edit requests seems like a waste of other's time, and I don't want to ask another interface editor to do this busy work for me.

There will be a redirect system set up so that the hash is converted to a query string for backwards compatibility, but this could break in some instances, e.g. if a question mark was already present for whatever reason. It's best we actually fix the links. A bot could be written to do this, as it is quite simple, but not sure if we want a bot editing interface pages. I think human review would be far more preferable. To be clear, I'm only going to fix the links on interface pages, as that's where most traffic comes from. Other links will rely on the redirect system.

As such I am requesting the temporary ability to edit interface pages globally. The only changes made would be simply replacing # with ?, marked as minor, with an informative edit summary linking to this discussion. Working around my current schedule, I suspect this will take no longer than a few days. I can report back here requesting removal once I have completed the task. Thank you — MusikAnimal talk 17:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikis that are potentially linking to Pageviews Analysis are listed here. When you first load Pageviews Analysis, the wiki specified in the URL is recorded for simple usage tracking. This means the data you see is likely from on-wiki links. The most popular places to link are MediaWiki:Pageinfo-footer and MediaWiki:Histlegend, which is what I would be checking. I'm also probably only going to bother with the top 100 — MusikAnimal talk 18:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello. From what it sounds like, this is a reasonable task which is within the scope of the GEI group. It will need to stay open for a couple of days to allow for other comments, but I can grant you this permission temporarily for however long is needed at that time. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Would also support for "permanent" status of 1 year, but this is fine. --Rschen7754 00:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you perhaps share this list of wikis with us? Thanks in advance, --Vogone (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Vogone: See above :) — MusikAnimal talk 18:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support trusted user--BRP ever 05:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support trusted user. --TerraCodes (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support for this single specific task. xaosflux Talk 03:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support trusted. Thank you for your work. —Ah3kal (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -FASTILY 04:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support trusted user on enwiki, already a global renamer. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Done - please start another section here when you are done to have the rights removed. Thanks for volunteering to do this. Ajraddatz (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    Not here, but rather on SRP. ;-) --Vogone (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    I'll answer the request here or there, but to avoid Vogone rage maybe there is better :P Ajraddatz (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for Oscar .

thanks, --Krd 08:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Steven Crossin

thanks, --Krd 07:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for Krassotkin

thanks, --Krd 13:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done. --Stryn (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OTRS request for শাহাদাত সায়েম

thanks, --শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  Not done, only OTRS administrators can request these rights for users. --Stryn (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  Comment Not an OTRS member. To apply see OTRS/Volunteering --Krd 17:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Peteforsyth

thanks, --Krd 13:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid Talk 13:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was fast. I have engaged (admittedly lightly) with discussions about how OTRS will be handled going forward, and have participated on OTRS (admittedly lightly). I would have liked the opportunity to discuss what is expected to retain access before having it removed. There are good reasons for my light engagement there, and I think a worthwhile discussion to be had. -Pete F (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Please contact me by e-mail, or feel free to reply to the notification you got at May 22. Thank you. --Krd 06:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for User:Coffee

thanks, --Krd 07:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)