Open main menu
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 June 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Contents

Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for 和平奮鬥救地球

Not ending before 11 June 2016 06:10 UTC

I am a sysop of Chinese Wikipedia and a member of SWMT, and I usually check vandalisms and nonsenses on the #cvn-sw channel of IRC (my nickname on IRC: Peace). This permissons would help me in my work. Thanks!--- Earth Saver (talk) at 06:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support.┌─⚡⠠⠵[learningis1st]-[~]- time = 06:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support。--霧島聖 (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support seems to have good experience using revert across multiple wikis. I can't find any errors myself in their work, and there is enough of it (and in recent times) to justify being granted GR. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Imho not enough crossactivity. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support,she has a lot of experience on global anti-vandalism, and she is also a sysop in zhwp, so I think she is competent for this duty.--James970028 (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, good experience on global anti-vandalism. I think this user can competent the works, too.--Bowleerin (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Steinsplitter, I'd like to see a bit more activity. eurodyne (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Reverted vandalism on 62 wikis. Music1201 talk 23:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Strange, I see reverts on less than 40 wikis. Matiia (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    (Moved from this diff)  Support Good crosswiki reverts. Trusted user. Music1201 talk 00:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit low on the number of reverts but being a sysop on a big wiki makes up for it IMO. --Rschen7754 00:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, crossactivity seems to support Steinsplitter's point, unfortunately. Though I am optimistic 和平奮鬥救地球 could be a good candidate if activity is being kept up constantly for a few months. Thanks for volunteering, --Vogone (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Quite a few of the projects are in green there, and the rest are within the last couple of months. I know you oppose anyone who doesn't have months and months of non-stop experience in this area, but really, are there any mistakes in their work? Is there any actual reason why this person shouldn't be granted this flag to help them contribute a little more effectively, other than your own subjective interpretation of what you expect to see in terms of experience? Ajraddatz (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    There are reverts on less than 40 wikis, as also Matiia says, which makes it hard to make an evaluation of the work in the first place. What's the harm with giving the applicants a chance to show their expertise before we grant the flag? And my "own subjective interpretation" is apparently shared by more people than only me (even by some supporters who however take the zhwiki adminship into account), and if you remember requests filed 3-4 years ago this here would almost have been a classical "snowball" case. The general attitude towards these requests seems to have changed, not what I and the policy do expect from applicants. --Vogone (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Not at all. Have a look through the archives, to requests like this, or really any of them. The requests that fail are from people who have no experience with reverting xwiki, or who just started. Most successful ones come with phrases like "GR is no big deal" etc etc. Looking back through my own global contribs, I only had reverts on ~35 wikis when I was approved for global rollback in early 2011. Reverts on that many wikis gives more than enough material to evaluate the quality of the reverts, though of course it is always preferable for candidates to have more than that. As an aside, there were a lot more people involved back in 2011-2012 - it would be nice to have more people involved in this. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Exactly, and this here is a good example of someone who falls into the "just started" category where I'd like to see a little more before supporting. Though, I suppose it's a bit unfair to the candidate to have such a debate of principles on their application. We should do this elsewhere. --Vogone (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I suppose. I think it might be a good idea to have a conversation about GR standards elsewhere, even if it's to set up some sort of guideline for candidates. But that's a discussion for another place :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support though a bit more crosswiki activity would be favourable. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 02:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit more cross-wiki countervandalism experience would be good, but I think they will be fine considering their experience as sysop on zhwp. Defender (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Active in 64 wikis, agree with Ajraddatz. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough activity yet. And adminship on other wikis was never considered relevant for this (after all, on those wikis, candidates can already revert). --MF-W 08:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per MF-W. I couldn't see "heavy use of reverts globally". Thanks for volunteering, --Infinite0694 (Talk) 11:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportEnough active.--Nbfreeh 04:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, quite ok. --Stang 12:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, per above, unfortunately. Maybe later. Thanks for helping! :) Matiia (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ajraddatz. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We need more people with mother tongues other than English. --Holder (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for volunteering! Omni Flames (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Let's give a chance. --Lingveno (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above. SPQRobin (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Trusted, rollback is no big deal. -FASTILY 06:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ajraddatz. INC 04:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, Why not? trusted user, good experience. --Ks-M9 Talk (es-wiki) 10:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
  •   Oppose; unfortunately does not have the level of crossactivity I would look for in a candidate for global rights. I would suggest simply continuing to use undo or Twinkle if it still works until you establish a more clear need for the rights, then apply again. -Mh7kJ (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 66 entries are good enough IMO, and more than 10 in green crossactivity means user is quite active.--AldNonymousBicara? 16:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  Support See cross-wiki experience. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 17:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support--Lanwi1(Talk) 20:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  Done There is a consensus to grant this permission. Though some of the comments are favoring oppose as there is not enough crosswiki activity, ignoring the blanket supports, nearly double the number of comments are favoring support as there is enough cross wiki activity. Also asked fellow steward's opinion, there as well 2 stewards are thinking that there is not enough consensus while four of us are ok to grant this permission. This request is already open for a while, so I am assuming good faith and granting this permission--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for CoBot

CoBot is a bot I operate on eswiki and it has been affected by a block on 2001:19F0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 since I changed hosting providers in February. --Polsaker (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That range has been blocked for a year globally, if you are only having a problem at eswiki, have you applied for a local (es:Wikipedia:Exento de bloqueo a IP) exemption? eswiki administrators should be able to handle that. — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've been told by the eswiki administrators that the local excemption doesn't work with global blocks. Polsaker (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Local exemption will handle global blocks as well. I can still give you the global flag if needed, if the bot has the potential to be used on Wikidata and other projects as well. Please advise. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest that he tries first the local option. —MarcoAurelio 09:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask for the local flag too, but this bot also sporadically edits in Wikidata (when moving categories). Polsaker (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I've granted your bot the global flag. I could have granted you the local flag on wikidata and got you to ask eswiki sysops, but at that point it's getting to multiple projects and this is a global block we're dealing with. Please let us know if / when the flag is no longer required. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for global rename permissions

Global rename for مجتبیٰ

Not ending before 29 June 2016 04:21 UTC

Im from ur wiki and i want to become a renamer because i think there is no other renamer at ur wiki. Maybe, if i become a renamer, than urwiki found a renamer for themselves--مجتبیٰ (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think no one is responding—مجتبیٰ (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Evident hat collecting on the English Wikipedia: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], along with a lack of maturity as they invited Jimmy Wales to the Teahouse, a place for newcomers, and their requests to have their username changed was disruptive and spammy: [7] [8] [9] [10]. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • More hat collecting on the English Wikipedia; user clearly has not been following advice. Filed yet another request for template editor despite having been told not to do so just five days earlier [11]. The user's contributions clearly show a lack of need for the template editor userright, and they have even less of a need for global rename. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That time i was new--مجتبیٰ (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per k6ka. Insufficient crosswiki experience and hat collecting. Additionally, his account was created 54 days ago. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 13:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Rschen7754 18:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no experience or good rationale for the request. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above. No relevant experience. -FASTILY 06:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose-- I am sorry to oppose. The invitation of Jimbo to Teahouse and the claim of newness is enough for me to oppose this request. Wikicology (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't really care about that hat collecting, but inviting Jimbo to Teahouse is too funny to ignore.--AldNonymousBicara? 16:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Registered user only 1 month and a half ago, also concerned the collection of flags that has in other projects and have invited the teahouse to Jimbo Wales in enwiki. It does not give me confidence to possess the tool. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of demonstrable experience with user changes, currently on indef block at enwiki from checkusers. — xaosflux Talk 18:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Because i made a cleanstart under new username [✖ withdrawn]مجتبیٰ (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I marked the status accordingly per above comment. — regards, Revi 14:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Global rename for Qian Nivan

Not ending before 26 June 2016 22:22 UTC

Are you requesting these permissions, or just an account rename? (and is it related to the bug on fawiki?) Ajraddatz (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, NO, I like to become a renamer, because in my language (fa) just few people are renamer.Qian.Nivan (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Created a request whiteout statement, no x-wiki experience. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Steinsplitter. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no rationale and insufficient experience. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, some of us don't even consider 0 renamers in a language a sufficient rationale. --Rschen7754 04:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, missing statement, limited x-wiki experience -FASTILY 04:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Can i get the link of requirments for becoming a renamer? Qian.Nivan (talk)
    • @Qian.Nivan.Out.Of.Service: There are no "set in stone" requirements, however we generally look for users that have participated in the changing username process (Like clerking requests, not by requesting them) and some cross-wiki activity. Of course, we also look for a nomination statement, which you did not provide, and so people can't support this request. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it appears the user is indeed trying to become a renamer, I am unfortunately unable to support this request, largely because a nomination statement was not even provided! I also don't see any evidence that the user has any experience with the renaming process whatsoever. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose-- I am sorry to oppose at this time. The lack of rationale is concerning. Seems the editor is not yet ready for the tool. Wikicology (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not see cross-wiki work, additionally, the fact of not knowing how the process global renaming does not inspire confidence. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 17:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Request is malformed, and SUL does not appear to be in order. — xaosflux Talk 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Not done --MF-W 22:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Global rename for শাহাদাত সায়েম

I am requesting to become the renamer permission --শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not ending before 27 June 2016 09:21 UTC
  • Oppose No x-wiki experience and the statement is speaking for itself. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Steinsplitter. No valid statement. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As I've told you in the past, requesting user rights in different wikis without demonstrating the need is a bad idea and a clear sign of hat collecting. It seems you didn't learn (for instance:[12] & [13]). ~ Nahid Talk 10:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient rationale and experience. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per NahidSultan. --Rschen7754 04:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Concerns with limited x-wiki experience -FASTILY 04:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor nomination statement. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no need of the flag. --Lingveno (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Obvious hat collecting per NahidSultan. Music1201 talk 00:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support--مجتبیٰ (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, not enough experience. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--- I am sorry to oppose. I have no other choice than to do so per NahidSultan's comment. Wikicology (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not see work cross-wiki. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 17:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  Not done. RadiX 14:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for other global permissions

remove global OTRS member for Grashoofd

thanks, --Krd 02:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for TLSuda

thanks, --Krd 13:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done, Linedwell (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Kwj2772

thanks, --Krd 13:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done, Linedwell (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Ldorfman

thanks, --Krd 13:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done, Linedwell (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Delfort

Thanks, --Krd 07:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done, Linedwell (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Rcsprinter123

Thanks, --Krd 07:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done, Linedwell (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Hexasoft

Thanks, --Krd 11:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done. RadiX 13:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Nirmos

I need global-interface-editor to update JavaScript on all projects. You can read more at mw:ResourceLoader/Legacy JavaScript and mw:ResourceLoader/Migration guide (users). I have done this at the following projects:

  1. sv.wiktionary
  2. sv.wikibooks
  3. sv.wikiquote
  4. se.wikimedia
  5. sv.wikinews
  6. nn.wikipedia
  7. ba.wikipedia
  8. fo.wikipedia
  9. cdo.wikipedia
  10. kk.wikipedia
  11. frr.wikipedia
  12. nl.wiktionary
  13. jv.wikipedia
  14. outreach.wikimedia
  15. de.wikiversity
  16. ur.wikipedia
  17. fr.wikinews
  18. nl.wikiquote

Nirmos (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Didn't you just run for this? --Rschen7754 14:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Concerns: 1, 2, 3 --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see the concerns regarding the need to fix those old js. The 3 discussions above didn't resolved as a clear-no. #1 is for sv.wv, #2 is for GAF, #3 wasn't closed properly (timed-out?). I'd say approve. Bennylin 18:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If this needs to be done on all projects you would think that the developers would be well aware of this and have something in place to update the almost 300 projects. They wouldn't just roll this out without telling anyone anything. I have major concerns over the urgency in this request and I really do not feel like they would follow the guidelines set out at interface editors. Specifically, interface editors should avoid making routine changes to the interface on larger wikis without prior agreement. Has anyone actually contacted a developer to check to see if this is even necessary? Or has Nirmos taken it upon themselves to make potentially unnecessary changes to hundreds of interface pages? Without further information on the necessity of this I   Oppose granting this right. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Well I think even if devs have some plans it is always good to have more hands doing a large scale task. But it would be indeed good to see some coordination between the parties. --Base (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Seeing as interface editing can have wide ranging effects on readers I feel like coordination is not only good but necessary. If the devs are aware of this, which I certainly hope they are, there should be a way to just update the interface with the rollout of the updated mediawiki software. This is one of the most powerful rights that can be granted and the implications of granting it are high. There has to have been some communication for me to feel comfortable supporting this. Nirmos should have, at the very least, done a little bit of the legwork and contacting the development team to see if this is necessary. Barring that, I need to hear input from a dev regarding this before I would support granting this right.--Majora (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Majora: You misunderstand the situation. It's the MediaWiki developers that are making these deprecations. It's up to the community to fix it. As for communication, they have mostly written on mailing lists, not on village pumps on individual projects like I have done. As for whether this is necessary or not, I know it's necessary because I've read the mailing lists, tech news, Phabricator tasks, the pages on mediawiki.org and – perhaps most importantly – the JavaScript console in the browser where the warnings are visible. As for "there should be a way to just update the interface with the rollout of the updated mediawiki software", I'm afraid that isn't possible. If you know JavaScript and you have looked at my edits on the projects mentioned above, you should understand why. To explain it briefly, the deprecations are about global variables and global functions. The instances where these global variables are accessed or these global functions are called need to be replaced by the new ones, because the whole point is to remove as many global variables and global functions as possible. It simply cannot be done in the MediaWiki software, no matter how good of an idea that is. Nirmos (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This was rejected in April and nothing seems to have changed. — xaosflux Talk 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I've been asked to leave a comment here. The changes Nirmos proposes here are not urgent. The code he suggest be removed from various wiki can and should be removed, however the code is also harmless to stay. I would recommend against granting editinterface for one-time clean up actions unless it is something urgent. Removal of redundant code is often non-trivial and requires careful surgical precision and an intermediate understanding of JavaScript programming. --Krinkle (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you Krinkle. Per your explanation and your recommendation my vote has not changed. I still oppose this appointment. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Due to the substantial opposition I am closing this request as   Not done. Ruslik (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)