Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Hey, I've been admin in Persian Wikipedia for around eight years now, I'm also 'crat and member of supervisory committee (like ArbCom) there. Global renamer and also admin in Wikidata too. I need global sysop mostly to help other Persian Wikis. For example, recently I had to become admin temporarily in all other wikis to add several abuse filters to stop a vandal attacking Persian Wikipedia users in those wikis because those abuse filters was enough to stop him in Persian Wikipedia. I will also help out in any other case if there is the need. Amir (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. Trusted user. --HakanIST (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. This request falls outside the scope of the GS tool. GS is intended for users active cross-wiki within its scope, and not for active involvement on only a handful of projects without a local voting process or other form of approval. I suggest you request longer-term temporary adminship on the Persian wikis instead of requesting a right that gives you access to far more than necessary. Savhñ 09:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Savh: Thanks for the note but I must note that I tried it before (I was temp. admin for several months in almost all other Persian projects) but that wasn't enough and also I'm not saying I won't help out in other issues, I'm saying my main focus would be those wikis. Amir (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
What exactly was "not enough"? As far as I am aware, local adminstrators do not have less permissions than global administrators. --Vogone (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
By "not enough" I meant the time span not the rights. I requested for three months, I did some stuff and once the three months were done the rights got revoked. I'm kind tired and don't want to request for adminship every three months (or bigger time span for that matter) specially since they are not one or two projects. We have six other Persian projects beside Wikipedia. And I emphasize that it was the trigger not the only reason. I though "I can help GSs and do a lot more" Amir (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Trusted user. Wikicology (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Neutral, I'm not seeing that this request is in a scope of the tool. Mostly per Savh. I'm not opposed because you are a trusted user and you know how to use the tools, but the theme here is the scope of global sysop, that I'm not seeing. --Ks-M9[disc.] 11:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
Support Definitely!--Arash (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Request sysopship on those persian wikis. EDIT I'd like to see more cross-wiki activity, this is not sufficient for my standards. --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd like to support because Ladsgroup is a nice and competent user. Savh is correct, however, that this request might fall a bit outside of the GS scope if some conditions ain't met. You should limit the activities to general and uncontroversial maintenance only as per policy and it'd be good if you could also help out on other projects as well. I see that you mention that you'd like to help out elsewhere too. Being focused on some projects is good, specially if you know the language. If you think you can limit your activities to general mopping there and on the rest of GS wikis then I have no problems with you joining the team. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 15:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
User:MarcoAurelio. I will definitely limit my activities, both in Persian Wikis and non-Persian ones, to what's mentioned in GS: "antivandalism and routine maintenance" Amir (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Support good select for global wiki --AFlorence (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Support excellent.Trusted user.--Behzad39 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Good candidate. Seems reasonable so I have no reason to oppose. Reguyla (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Support The best option, There is no reason to oppos--SharakyTalk 19:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This is not a valid reason for requesting GS. Similar requests have rightly been rejected in the past. Requesting a right for 700+ wikis when you only want to do stuff on 6 (and seemingly “more“ i.e. outside of the scope of GSes?) also disenfranchises the local communities. --MF-W 10:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts largely mirror MarcoAurelio's. --Rschen7754 21:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Support It's neccesary for Persian wikis and you are a good option. hoping to ascent. --Smorteza (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as out of scope for GS. Please request adminship locally on each of those Wikis. -FASTILY 07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as out of scope for GS. The trust level of the requestor was never a factor to override lack of scope in previous GS requests. --Krd 08:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Of course. Will improve their ability to collaborate across more languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per MF-Warburg. If you want sysop access for the Persian Wikis that can be arranged through the proper channels. This request is out of scope for GS. We shouldn't be giving you keys to everything if you only need to open a few locks. --Majora (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per MF-Warburg...we basically only have 3 GS who do work on mostly all smaller wikis instead of just looking after their own 'personal ones', we don't need more.--Stemoc 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Even though I disagree with you about the scope (I wanted to be a global renamer to handle Persian requests mostly too but I ended up doing way more global requests than local ones). I respect people who opposed and withdraw my request. Amir (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am active globally dealing/focusing on counter-vandalism/spam, tagging pages for deletion and also reporting of sockpuppet as well lock needing account. However, I contribute via an anonymizing proxy such as Tor. So that to edit without any interruption, I'ld like to request for Global IP block exempt flag. Thanks, Born4People (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to use VPN permanently due to government censorship and surveillance in my country, but I'm afraid of any IP block, I work in many wikis and projects and I'm Commons filemover and member in SWMT, so I need exemption to work easy, thanks, --Ibrahim.ID✪ 01:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
My VPS falls within a range that is globally blocked, I was planning to run some scripts from it. 15:33, 2 April 2015: Vituzzu (meta.wikimedia.org) globally blocked 2604:A880:800:0:0:0:0:0/48 (expires on 2 April 2020 at 15:33) (Open proxy: 2604:a880:800:10::6b3:5001/64). Legoktm (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The following request is closed: The discussion is now officially closed. The right has been removed and nothing has to be said about -jkb- anymore. Please continue the discussion elsewhere (preferably on cs.wiki or their sister projects or otherwise via a RFC) if necessary. Trijnsteltalk 15:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Experienced, confidable, 6 languages --MBq (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Definitely experienced enough to handle this tool. --Vogone (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, sounds reasonable for me, I'm sure that he make a good use of this right. --Ks-M9[disc.] 22:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC).
Support, as above. --Stepro (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Support I've encountered -jkb- in several projects at several times and he seems like a completely trustworthy user. If he's asking for the tools, I trust his motivations and judgement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Support trusted and with some use for the permission. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Question: How do you come to the conclussion that the user is trusted? By the number of flags?--Juandev (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support trusted and competent user.—Ah3kal (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose He banned me indef for posing a question if the site (cs.wikisource) had admin vote rules. No kidding. After this, he keeps lying and manipulating about that. And I'm still banned for posing a question on site rules. -jkb- has simply no ability to admit he made a huge mistake. How could you trust someone like this? For more details see Requests for comment/cs.wikisource admins--Auvajs (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I dont trust -jkb- due to the fact he abuses admin right on cs.ws, by blocking inocent users. In fact its a part of a political play, because he is a member of a group of users, who hijack small Czech and Slovak wiki projects. They overtake rights on these projects, by slowly removing other admins and persecute those, who does not agree with their POV. These conflicts are widely known within the Czech community and in some cases they led to the death of the projects (like Czech Wikinews - the graph shows the decline of new articles, as active members where remove). So what I want to say. If -jkb- does not respect community and punishes it, it cannot recive such global rights. Second reason to oppose this request is the fact, that this group in fight for power creates also sockpuppets and recently one of their members coined the idea to rename these socks. That would cover tracks to those, who were bulling other users, while banned from editing by arbcom, or those holding a flag and meanwhile trolling from sock (user:Jednorázový neprovokační účet). Help with advance rights to each other are allready known.--Juandev (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well voters, who doesnt speak Czech may consider -jkb- as trusted users, we who understand Czech does not trusted due to the founders syndrome he was trapped on Czech Wikisource. Thats all.--Juandev (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Very problematical administrator on czech Wikisource. --Martin Kotačka (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, Auvajs (previously known as mass sockpuppeter) and his friends have personal problems with him, but Globalrename right is hardly misuseable... JAn Dudík (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
And what about your sockpuppets, would you ask your friend to rename them globaly to hide the traits? What about User:Jednorázový neprovokační účet (in English User:One-time non-provocative account), whould you still deny its yours even traits (, ) links to you?--Juandev (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose It is not a good choice (cs.wiki). --Protestant (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Experienced user. --Bazi (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment -jkb- above is talking about anti canvassing campaign on Czech projects. I have just informend on some projects, which I belive to have some communities about this request, due to the fact -jkb- is native Czech speaker. I generally thing it would be a nice idea that every time someone from some community request some global or upper rights with the influence to mother community, the local community is invited to leave their thoughs. Generally just a few non realated people "is" on Meta. In this case -jkb- could do it by himself at the beggining and could include German community, where he is very active and where I cannot do that, because I speak no word of that language.--Juandev (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Because of strong abuse of his sysop rights on czech Wikisource ("Auvajs case", still blocked. My reaction at Meta , ). --Vlout (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I really don't think he is trusted user as some users said before me. I don't think that somebody who abused sysop rights can hold global rename rights (I think they require larger amount of trust than only a local sysop). I also don't agree that global rename right is hard to misuse. If it is true why it isn't granted to all users? If I rename one account I wish to hide multiple times (not at once of course) nobody will able to know what was its previous name and will not be able to connect it to the previous name. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Given the recent case of the candidate having blocked innocent users without a good reason being brought up by the users above me, I withdraw my support and have moved to oppose. Sorry, but global rename is largely a position of trust, and it's clear that the user has violated a community's trust in them. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I don't trust -jkb- due to the fact he abuses admin right on cs.ws, by blocking users, not clearly/truly argued. --Kusurija (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Not respectable user, problems with abuse of rights in the past. Vojtěch Zavadil (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose -jkb- is not trustworthy user at least (as mentioned above). He could be experienced, but I see him too controversial. — Draceanetalkcontrib. 14:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support competent user. --Jan KovářBK (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment @Auvajs' and following comments: Seems to me there's been some canvassing. If there's a problem with jkb's sysoppery on cs.wiki or cs.wikisource, you should use the appropriate means of those projects to resolve it. Renaming users on their request is a specified and regularized task, I don't see overlappings. --MBq (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment @MBq Do You think, that is possible on cs.wikisource to to slove questions, which asked (before being blocked indef) Auvajs, without severe problems for (re)asker? How about solving this question on any other wikimedia site (cs.), without any apropriate result? --Kusurija (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Question: What does it mean "canvassing" or "anti-canvassing", the dictionary was not helpfull? Is that a special wiki related term?--Juandev (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@MBq: In the local discussion on cs.wikisource: s:cs:Wikizdroje:U pramene#Odblokování uživatele Auvajs 8 users (Shlomo, Martin Kotačka, Juandev, Jan.Kamenicek, Hadonos, Okino, Kusurija, Palu) either explicitly supported uplifting the ban, said the ban was useless/bad or said that such a ban made the project (cs.wikisource) useless/bad. Only -jkb- and Lenka64 were defending the ban. Danny B. wasn't talking to the subject (but he probably supports the ban as well). So even the majority of cs.wikisource users is against such a ban yet I'm still banned indef. -jkb- not only gives meaningless bans, changes reasoning about them but also ignores community consensus. Not to speak about the fact that the cs.wikisource community literally never confirmed him as an admin although he was asked by many users to resign/have himself confirmed. --Auvajs (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Bad experiences - jkb means that community consensus is for children and he is big boy; that admin is chief of community - no more rights for jkb pls, let deciding of things in hands of community pls. --Palu (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose bad experiences from cswiki, extremely bad experiences from cswikisource.--Jklamo (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment Since the above named RfC (problem between some users) of 2015 has never been closed and the problem between users or in those communities has never been resolved, and since there seems to be no consensus in cs-wikis for those rights, and since I'm regrettably also missing AGF in some other cases (especially in correlation with user blocks and with normal opinions in correlation with reelections), I'd like to make a proposition as compromise: If it should be possible I would support to only rename users after their own request at the dewiki rename request page, but I would oppose doing renames following requests in other wikis (until there is consensus for also that in those wikis according to a local discussion about it at cswiki/cswikisource) including requests at Meta wiki and do no renames according to the global rename queue directly, but only following requests onwiki. I think the rename queue is too intransparent and there could be problems or irritations then, where you maybe don't see them before. I think there is more need for renamers at dewiki. I'm not fully convinced now regarding global rename rights on other wikis including Meta wiki and requests coming over the rename queue directly (knowing that all renames are global, but this is not the main problem). I think there could be users that you (or another sysop that you trust) have blocked in one wiki and who still edit in other wikis and want to be renamed at Meta because of good reasons. I don't see no reason that they should not have the right to be renamed globally just because of a block in one wiki, if they want it. Maybe they have a real name as user name and don't want the blocking log to be shown with their real name or they have other good or understandable reasons. Thus, if you only rename following a dewiki request on the dewiki page, there should be no problems with that. Otherwise, I have to oppose because of missing transparency at the Meta rename queue and because of unresolved problemes in those other wikis and some other things, sorry, maybe another time in that case. --Bjarlin (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Strong support: Trusted, competent user. With some noblesse and capable of seeing the bigger picture.--Pyprilescu (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
LateOppose, just for the record. The block of Auvajs in Czech Wikisource was inappropriate, and the behavior the nominee showed conveyed that he could do anything he wants without explaining himself. As for whether the posts to multiple Czech projects were canvassing of the wrong kind: it is true that I would not know of the existence of this vote without these posts. However, it is not clear to me why communities that can be most impacted should not be notified. Since the nominee is a Czech native speaker operating above all in Czech wikis, Czech wikis seem to be natural venues to be notified of this vote/discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
-jkb- resigned yesterday. So it's pretty useless to go on putting "votes" (which aren't per policy). That's obviously the worst outcome since the losing faction will obviously "seek a payback". Just a further note: global renamers do not handle request of a single project, they randomly pick up requests from the queue. Notification like this would be worth blocks on many wikis. But any kind of notification usually brings bias, most common one is the positive bias of speakers of a certain language supporting their fellow candidate. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion about evaluation
Done as per policy I weighted more comments by users with a certain crosswiki activity, trying to filter out canvassing, but also counter-canvassing. Global rename is not a big deal. Global renamers might abuse in two ways (basically) doing rouge renames which brings to immediate removal, refusing legit rename request, which cannot bring any actual damage (requests can be submitted more and more times) but could bring to removal too. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to close it: thank you, there will be no problems with me; and I better do not comment what happened here above and especially what I had to read about my person on cs.wiki. Thanks. -jkb- 21:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vituzzu: I do not want to judge the eligibility of certain supports/opposes here, but the policy clearly says a margin of "at least 80%" is required, which is very clearly not the case here. Furthermore, you supported. I suppose this should be re-evaluated by another steward, especially due to its controversy (even though I personally agree with your assessment wrt danger of abuse etc.). --Vogone (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Though I read "This is not a vote, and all input is welcome. 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." just a bunch of lines up of this, well, if someone likes canvassing then they can act. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe the granting of the right to be properly justified. Savhñ 00:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, I wasn't able to find where did the 80% requirement comes from, it doesn't seem to have ever been discussed. This inconsistency must be fixed for sure, but meanwhile I think there are no formal flaws in my decision above since even the policy is formally flawed. Is there any substantial objection? Is there a practice to avoid alleged COI? But, above all, I find "Furthermore, you supported." to be pretty insinuative, has it any ground? --Vituzzu (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
80% comes from Global renamers obviously. If you want a quote it follows: These requests will run for at least two weeks, and require consensus for promotion and a support margin of at least 80%. (bolded by me). If I count correctly there are 51 support comments, 18 opposes comments, that gives us 73% support which isn't "at least 80%". BTW what policy says comments from users with higher crosswikiness are more valuable than comments from other users. Finally I'd like to say I respect the decision of stewards, I only wanted to tell you where the 80% comes from as you asked. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I see +80%, no counting canvassing. I don't see the problem. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant who choose the 80% threshold. It doesn't seem to have ever been discussed. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Everyone knows that one should not close discussions one was involved in, especially not contentious ones as this one here. Also, the 80% requirement is clearly in the policy, whether you suddenly think it is an invalid policy or not. --MF-W 14:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It's even more ridiculous to give precedence to a never discussed requirement over consensus. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Entirely possible, but my main point was that protests against acting on requests where one voted oneself should be expected and not be called "pretty insinuative". It is very right of users to point out such things. --MF-W 17:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm happy to trust Vituzzu's judgment here. There was some controversy over what seems like a single incident from 2015, and clearly some sort of organized/canvassed opposition late in the process. I think it's perfectly fair for Vituzzu to weight those votes accordingly - after all, that's what Stewards are trusted to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I fully endorse Vituzzu's judgement here. The canvassing (both for and against the candidate) needs to be weighted appropriately so as to be fair to the candidate today, but also to discourage this disruptive behaviour tomorrow and in the future. I've known Vituzzu long enough now that I know he would refuse to promote someone where canvassing has artificially inflated a support percentage, just as he has promoted here when canvassing has artificially deflated the support percentage. Nick (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't trust Vituzzu's judgement at all. I'm pretty clear he evaluated the vote in a way he personally wanted. Also, I'm active in WM projects since 2004 and I've never seen excluding votes/user's opinions on the basis of some alleged canvassing. What's bad about notifying users about an ongoing vote/discussion? Since I can see many -jkb-'s supporters are active on the German Wikipedia (and possibly his fellows or friends), it is evident they must have been notified in some way too. --Auvajs (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I told both side to reciprocally ignore each other but as I can see you don't at all. How long will meta be battleground to this war? Where will the war move after meta? --Vituzzu (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
How long will you continue to support one side pretending to be neutral? How long will you help harrassing users by saying there's no harrassment? --Auvajs (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
QED, the only kind of neutrality you accept is uncritically supporting you. In this sense no steward can be "neutral". --Vituzzu (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a couple of thoughts: we have always discounted canvassed votes here, except as they are able to convince those active in global work to change their votes. I think this request meets the 80% support requirement as per policy. I agree that Vituzzu shouldn't have closed this, though - while I would prefer to ignore who the specific closer is and focus on their arguments for closing, the steward policy is quite clear on avoiding conflicts of interest. If closing something contentious that you supported isn't a conflict of interest, then I don't know what is. There are 30 stewards; it isn't hard to wait for one who hasn't commented to close a discussion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If you don't know the policy explains it "using steward access on any wiki where they have been blocked; changing rights on home wikis (wikis where they are active community members), except for clearcut cases (such as self-requested removal or emergencies)." I actually avoid even uncontroversial stuffs. But votes should bring to COI otherwise it would be easy to formally abstaining then closing in a non neutral manner. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC) To clarify, policy dictates "impartiality" not "neutrality", I'm not neutral but I think I'm impartial. Anyone can review my actions at any time and (as in the previous year) I'll have Auvajs writing in my next confirm "you accomplice to harassment" with a "party" quoting him, behaving in manner which already broke up cs.wiki's community. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the policy says "Stewards should use their judgment to avoid conflicts of interest, situations where they are not impartial to the decision". It then goes on to explain two cases where this may be the case, using the language "this includes" which clearly does not refer to those statements being 100% of the cases. This is such an obvious example of a COI that there is no need to explicitly list it in policy. The purpose of that policy is specifically to avoid discussions like this - if this request were closed by a neutral steward, then we'd be sitting here debating the reasoning, without any need to question whether the closer is biased. I don't think you are personally, but with 30 stewards, there is no need to enter into situations where you are perceived to be impartial - whether or not you are. Common sense applies to this like everything else; I've closed discussions that I supported when they have 100% support, because in those cases there is no potential to be accused of being impartial. But for an obviously contentious close like this, there is no need for it to be done by someone who has voted here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
+1; this was too close to be uncontroversial. --Rschen7754 01:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The whole time of the massive cross-canvassing and injuring I followed the policy "keep shutting up", now a statement.
canvassing - there was no one. Although I requested the right after an enquiry on German wikipedia, I didn't announce it there especially
cross canvassing: after the 24th January evening I found five anouncements about this request in czech projects and commons; especially in cs.wikipedia and cs.wiktionary there was a big discussion (one user has been blocked because she argued in favour of mine), I found many more or less incompetent conspiracy theories (I block my enemies in the cs.projects and to avoid that somebody will see it I rename them twice at the best), and I read many very unpleasant injuries about a dictator who is murdering his enemies on cs.source (genuine translation); last but not least: here I can read Auvajs' strategy - users in cs.projects should vote against me, as it is no voting here, the number of votes doesn't count, but when a mass of Czech users does so so probably some important users change their comments from pro to contra .
this group of users is known since many years, and I know one or two stewards who know the origins of the conflict which doesn't concern me at all (a very old conflict beween two groups in the WMCS)
the group who was cross-canvassing this request is the same that organised some more RFC's here ( and some more), that obstructed the election of a bureaucrat of the cs.wiki to global sysop  etc.; in May 2015 he mailed and supported the site Jewiki, that mobbed some admins of the de.wiki and was convicted by a German court; three times he accused me to establish here "concentration camps" , ,  (note: my father was fighting against the Nazis in the Royal Air Force and was injured very seriously twice; my mother had to hide herself at the end of the war as she was foreseen to go to the Reich to a Arbeitslager)
So. And the experienced meta users folow this "arguments" that only transfer the problems of the Czech community to other projects, not the first time, and it is known here; see my links to the RFC's (note: I left cs.wiki 2006 after I have been there one of the first admins since 2004).
Summary: in the past 13 years here I had to fight agains thousands of personal attacks and it was OK. But this is not an environment where I could work with a joy, I simply feel to be mobbed. I reject hereby the right of the global renamer. Even for the joy of the here involved users who obviously forget what is the goal of this project: to write an encyclopaedia. Thanks, and specially to Vituzzu. -jkb- 16:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
-jkb-'s statement:"...especially in cs.wikipedia and cs.wiktionary there was a big discussion (one user has been blocked because she argued in favour of mine)"
Reality: there wasn't a discussion at all on cs.wiktionary. One user has been blocked, because of her harrasment. Her statements where mostly unfolded accussations from conspiration and bad will of other editors.
-jkb- said: "...especially in cs.wikipedia and cs.wiktionary there was a big discussion (one user has been blocked because she argued in favour of mine)" --> there was a discussion "only" on Czech Wikipedia and I would not say it was big (only 11 out of 70 very active and 800 active users discussed it on Wikipedia). But let me clarify you what happened on Czech Wiktionary as most of you due to the language barrier cannot understand it.
I posted there my announcment (in English: Title: -jkb- requests global renamer rights Text: I inform you on the request of our fellow -jkb- on Meta for Global renamer rights (there is not much information in Czech there, so the right is about renaming accounts on all projects). You can present your point of view till 26. 1. (I discovered that Janurary 24th in the evening).
Lenka64 (thats the one -jkb- is talking about above) added a statement (English: Clarification: Juan tryes to find out enough negative voters, that they can ruin another personal enemy with (-user name removed -) and (-user name removed -). Well, every person is doing what he/she likes on wiki projects...--[[Uživatel:Lenka64|Lenka64]] ([[Diskuse s uživatelem:Lenka64|diskuse]]) 25. 1. 2017, 12:12 (CET))
I noticed, she removed it, so I took it back at 12:36 and rushed to her discussion page (12:38) to explained her, that I placed, becuase I placed it on active Czech projects and it could be placed on active German projects, but I cannot speak the language;, while she at 12:42, added back her first comment about our motivations
Admin Shlomo left a message on here discussion page (English translation: Title: Unfounded accusations at the Village pump Text: I understand, that you have your own point of view to the Juan's motivation, and I dont want to disaprove it. But it is to much to react on a neutrally written post with accusations of bad will and conspiration theories. If you really want to expres your point of view, wouldnt be better to call on the support to -jkb-?--[[Uživatel:Shlomo|Shlomo]] ([[Diskuse s uživatelem:Shlomo|diskuse]]) 25. 1. 2017, 14:12 (CET)
she replied: "I absolutely do not care of your opinion. In the view of the fact, that every person here say what he/she wants and where he/she wants, I perceive your intervention as a censorspip of an opponent. In other cases you behave deaf and blind...PS: If you perceive accusations as unfolded, then you dont have the ability for the function (means to be administrator)"
when she removed my notice at 14:23, I have opened the discussion at the same page, wheather such notice could be there or not. The notice about -jkb-'s request havent been placed there since that time again.
She replied to my post (Me: Stále dokolečka jsou s tebou problémy. Věnuj se editování a nevšímej si co se děje kolem. Nenapadej správce a kde koho.--[[Uživatel:Juandev|Juandev]] ([[Diskuse s uživatelem:Juandev|diskuse]]) 25. 1. 2017, 14:29 (CET) English: Round and round, there are problems with you. Take care of editing and dont take care what is going around. Do not attack admins and everybody.): (She:) Juan, you are a person, who walk round the projects, does not create content, say nonsense statements, take revange, on every possible place. Of course, you are beneficial to many people, settle one's accounts with sb via you (?). Please, do not write to me any more, replying to you is a loss of time. If you will contribute here and you will not make needless and wilful errors - I would love to give you advice. Othervice avoid my discussion page. --[[Uživatel:Lenka64|Lenka64]] ([[Diskuse s uživatelem:Lenka64|diskuse]]) 25. 1. 2017, 14:38 (CET). Than she was blocked for 3 days with the following reason: 'odstraňování cizích neutrálních diskusních příspěvků, nedoložené obviňování z konspirace a zlých úmyslů"' English: "removing neutral posts of other users, unfolded accussations from conspiration and bad will".
I am sorry for my English and its a little bit longer, but I have to clarify that.--Juandev (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Everybody talks about canvassing and -jkb- force his way to be visible with his statements of "massive anti canvasing" (he cant just make a comment to the row or follow the discussion flow. I am sorry that I have made 4 out of 5 announcment that this request is here. I did not known, that it is prohibited or unsutable.
Let me provide you with a translation of my announcment, which I had released e.g. on Czech Wikisource.
Original Czech announcment:
== -jkb- žádá o práva globáního přejmenovače ==
Upozorňuji na žádost kolegy -jkb- na Metě o práva Global renamer (česky tam toho moc není, tedy práva přejmenovávat účty na všech projektech). Vyjádřit se můžete jen do 26. 1. (objevil jsem to 24. večer).
Translated to English:
== -jkb- requests global renamer rights ==
I inform you on the request of our fellow -jkb- on Meta for Global renamer rights (there is not much information in Czech there, so the right is about renaming accounts on all projects). You can present your point of view till 26. 1. (I discovered that Janurary 24th in the evening).
Is it a "massive" way how to push people to vote against -jkb-?--Juandev (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Have such repeated notices been placed with other such requests? Savhñ 21:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The question is: Are there global renamers which are or have been active locally in those wikis? Or have there been active only local bureaucrats after local requests in the past? And since that, only renames at Meta wiki? At dewiki, there have been messages about other elections of global renamers with the template de:Vorlage:Beteiligen in the past (but not now in this case), and I don't think anyone has a problem with it. In this case, there have been local discussions (and now local elections) of bureaucrats at the local admin notices page (also normal). And then, also a short discussion about renamers with a link here, also normal (it has been archived just a few days later by an admin, so this is in the archive since ~10 days already). Why should people not inform others in a neutral way about such global elections/discussions in cases, when people are known and have been active for years in those wikis? I don't see a problem with neutral informations. In cases of global bans, there also is a policy saying that it is necessary to inform all local wikis in those languages about such a global request, when the user has been active there substantially. Policy wants information, that alone can never be seen as canvassing or unwanted. People at Meta aren't here all the time, it's not their homewiki. Therefore, the snowball clauseisn't possible here either. Neutral information should be possible. I think, there has to be found a good way for such things.
Not to weight comments, just because they come from wikis, where there has been such an information (with a following discussion which I haven't read or translated via Translator), that's not the right way. How can people know, if their comments here have been weighted or rejected in the evaluation? I even don't know that for my own comment either, maybe it has been rejected because of whatever? How can I know that? --Bjarlin (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Savh: I think, I have seen some on Czech Wikipedia. There is also a site notice invitation for stewards elections. Thats not canvassing? If you request a grant from WMF, target community is welcome to present their thougts. Thats not canvassing? If I would know there is such voting on the beggining, I would write a notice about it on the beggining. Unfortunately I got into that on the 24th.--Juandev (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
This kind of fallacy recalls me some of your famous "writing other wikipendians' realnames is not outing". I hoped this kind of drama ended a couple of years ago, but it didn't. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Whatever Juandev did, OK, let's condemn it, but why do you so vehemently overlook -jkb-'s harrassments? You are totally one-sided and have the audacity to call yourself neutral. LOL! --Auvajs (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote above your idea of neutrality implies the same kind of uncritical backing you give and receive and which has been breaking up CS language community for years. You've been accusing random people of "supporting harassment" for almost two years as of now. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Speaking about my motivations, you are completely wrong. To me, neutrality presupposes one is able to see the bad things both sides made. You were very quick in recognizing the bad things one side made but I've never seen you being able to admit the other side did very bad things too. Most importantly you never condemned -jkb-'s ban to myself on cs.wikisource. Quite on the contrary, you seem to be backing it up. Since the ban was described in the RfC, supported with evidence and confirmed by other Czech users, and you are still acting like -jkb- did nothing bad at all, I have no other option but to say you support harassment and you're definitely not neutral. This is not about myself and about me staying banned. It's about you being totally unable to see a person did something very, very bad. --Auvajs (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, I denied lots of requests from the other faction, while accepting most of Juandev's, even questionable one since they dealt with possible outing. I also ran, upon my initiative, the "famous" check bringing to "Milda case". There was eventually a moment I was even able to riconciliate both factions in opposing me. My "sins" against your faction were/still are: I don't think unblocking you is our business, nor I classify it as "harassment", I think outing done by Juandev were pure bad faith, above all per subsequent mirror climbing, finally I opposed the massive removal of all admins labeled as "enemy". In two years you wasn't able to persuade us of your thesis, then you should start considering you're wrong or you're trying it in the wrong way. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you stop spreading lies here about me!--Juandev (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you conscious your absurd war brought to a situation where almost no CS speaker will be able to get any global role because of cross-vetoing? --Vituzzu (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we stop this discussion here, please? The right has been removed and nothing has to be said about -jkb- anymore. Please continue the discussion elsewhere (preferably on cs.wiki or their sister projects or otherwise via a RFC) if necessary. The discussion is now officially closed. Trijnsteltalk 15:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I am requesting Global rename permission mainly because I frequently patrol en:Category:Requests for unblock, and since I often find username change requests there, I could help to process those more efficiently. I am currently an administrator, CheckUser, and Oversighter on the English Wikipedia. —DoRDtalk 18:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Not ending before 27 January 2017 18:47 UTC
Oppose no x-wiki activity, and he doesn't seems to be highly active at enwiki in that area. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Trusted user. In his CU role he does interact well with stewards and CUs from other wikis. --Rschen7754 19:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Support for me, cross-wiki experience is not needed for this right. The user is competent sufficiently and can be trusted with this tool. --Ks-M9[disc.] 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC).
Support Reliable user when owning CU and OS tools in English Wikipedia. I do not think you need to consider your cross-wiki activity. Alvaro Molina(Let's Talk) 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - Trusted user. BTW... DoRD is one of the few editors I respect a lot. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Support As global rename becomes more and more mature, I think crosswiki activity becomes less of a concern (Let's not forget that my crosswiki activity was rather poor when I ran for the global rename tool). The biggest factor in selecting new global renamers should be trust, because global rename is a tool that can cause serious issues if misused. This user has CheckUser and Oversight on the English Wikipedia, which are not tools for toddlers to play with, and if they can be trusted not to use checkuser "Out of personal curiosity" or oversight their own embarrassing edits from eons ago, they can be trusted not to rename Jimbo Wales to some silly username. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Steinsplitter. Limited cross wiki activity and frankly there are already quite a few people who do renames and they rarely sit long before they are done. Reguyla (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Users blocked on en.wiki for disallowed usernames are told to follow the procedure of requesting an unblock while specifying a new name they want to use, waiting for unblock, and then having to go and make the actual rename request somewhere else, with a warning that if they don't do it quickly they risk being blocked again. That is cumbersome and confusing, especially as it is usually newcomers who are hit by it (and to anyone not immersed in some of Wikipedia's arcane procedures which are often only there for historical or technical reasons, it can seem ludicrous). Having admins who can do the unblock and rename at the same time is a far superior approach, in my view - and it's got nothing to do with how many renamers there already are or how quickly the rename request queue is processed. Since I gained the renamer right, I have renamed/unblocked probably hundreds of 166 (rightly fearing optimism, I thought I'd better count) en.wiki users, making things simpler for them and making less work for those who process the unblock queue, and I honestly see no downside to that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. While I have opposed users in the past on the basis of no enough cross-wiki activities, I believe there are some users that shouldn't be opposed on that basis especially those who are active here for example. Wikicology (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. DoRD is trustworthy and already has sufficient experience as an advanced rights holder. He would easily put the mop to good use. RadiX∞ 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Enwiki, being the biggest project and about 1/4th of the active userbase, has a corresponding larger need for such renames. As such, I'm not too concerned with global experience in these cases - as with any global renamers, I expect them to be active on their home projects first, and only expand to handling more general requests as they gain experience and feel comfortable doing so. As with this specific candidate, I have no concerns with them using rename permissions. Though not sure I'd call it a mop, RadiX ;-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Let's see. Trusted? He's a CheckUser on enwiki, so clearly yes. Competent? Certainly. Need? Clearly described why they could use this right. And that's all that's needed for an advanced user right. ~ Rob13Talk 19:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - trustworthy and already has sufficient experience as an advanced rights holder. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Precisely per BU Rob13. Trust, competency, and demonstrated need are in line. I have witnessed DoRD handle unblock requests and CheckUser-related work quite thoroughly, and my thinking here is that the opposers may not have realized that en:WP:CHUS and/or en:WP:CHUU aren't the only place renamers are needed. --JustBerry (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I was about to close this but, though I do not agree, I'll take into consideration Ajraddatz's objection anyway. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Even though I am also biased, as I would have supported this request, I have attempted to measure consensus as objective as possible and I believe I reasonably assessed there was sufficient community consensus to grant this right. DoRD, please e-mail me or Trijnstel so we can subscribe you to the mailinglist. Thank you for your willingness to assist with the renaming of accounts. Savhñ 21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)