Open main menu
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 August 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.


Requests for global rollback permissions

Global rollback for Rufet Turkmen

The following request is closed.
  • AZ Salam. Aktiv olmayan Türkdilli vikipediyalarda daima vandalizmin qarşısını almaq üçün bu hüquq mənə lazımdır.
  • TR Merheba. Aktiv olmayan Türk dillerindeki vikipedilerin daima vandalizmden korunması için bu kullanıcı grubu benim için gerekli.
  • EN Hello. This user group is necessary for me to protect the wiki in the inactive Turkic languages from vandalism. (I do not know English well) --Rufet Turkmen (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Not ending before 02:56, 3 August 2018 UTC
  • Looking at your global edits, I only see one recent revert on projects other than those where you have sysop rights. I don't think that demonstrates sufficient experience reverting cross-wiki to warrant this permission being granted. Please get more experience using the (undo) button to revert vandalism, and then once we can judge those contributions we can look at assigning global rollback. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of cross-wiki anti-vandalism activity, has edits in about 40 projects in total. I checked some wikis where the user has a few edits and mostly they were adding image into pages (some of them later got removed by commonsdelinker) as well as other types of edits, but not reverting vandalism. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 03:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Too soon for now, try to be active in cross-wiki anti-vandalism contributions for 6 months, and then try again. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hörmətli həmkarlar mən bir AzWiki və TKWiki adminstratoruyam. Deyirsiz 6 ay rollback fəaliyyəti ilə məşğul olmamışam. Bu necə mümkün ola bilər? Çünki mən daima son dəyişiklik səhifəsinə nəzarət edirəm. --Rufet Turkmen (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Global rollback gives you rollback access and more across all of the Wikimedia wikis. We like to see experience reverting vandalism on a large number of them, and across language barriers, before granting this permission. IMO asking for six months of experience is far too much - one or two is fine. Enough to get some experience. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support In my opinion, there is a need.--►Neriman2003 talk 11:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
What is your opinion? Have you ever used rollback on any Wikimedia wikis? Why do you think this user can use rollback on all the projects with languages they don't speak? -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 16:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Masalli qasimli (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Capay (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough experience reverting and use case is not compelling either (why not get rollback locally?).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Qolcomaq (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I get the concerns, but I see no evidence they would abuse this or have any interest in using it outside of wikis in his own language where it may be helpful to have. More importantly, I take the word of people in this language group that there is a need, and he seems to be a trusted user in these communities. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Samral (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--eldarado 20:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose. I suggest he should request the flag locally. Global rollback is given to users who are actively working on different Wikimedia projects. In this case, it would be ineffective if he would use on only a few projects, IMHO. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 04:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support he is an active user in Azerbaijani and Turkmen Wikipedias. Aykhan Zayedzadeh (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Namikilisu (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Dəstəkləyirəm və uğurlar arzu edirəm! --►Cekli829 11:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Yusif Sərrac (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, I haven't seen this user actively reverting vandalism on many wikis. Stryn (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, not seeing and not saw the reverting of cross-wiki vandals. Marshmallych 16:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not enough cross-wiki activity. Try again when you got more experience. --Stïnger (会話) 17:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC).
  •   Support--Sortilegus (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Stryn. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rufet Turkmen is generous user in Az and Turkman Wikipedia.--Anar Məmmədov (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is not much cross-wiki activity to show the need of this right. Perhaps they should ask for local rollback on projects they mentioned or come back later after some cross-wiki experience. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per 1997kB. --Igna   (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose --Alaa :)..! 07:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose   Weak oppose: The comment by the original poster directed at علاء/Alaa above, accusing them of opposing based on nationalistic bias, was completely uncalled for; without an retraction of such comment, I strongly oppose any global rights for this user. Alex Shih (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Changing to weak oppose after the comments were removed. Local rights first, more activities, then maybe this can be considered. Alex Shih (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Above Concerns. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 03:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rufet is a good user and sysop. I think that he is deserved.--White DemΩn (el psy congroo) 20:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rufet is sysop in some wikis. I do not think he misuses if he is global rollback. --Irwin talk2me 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per 1997kB.-BRP ever 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done. The header says 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 and having this into account, I'm unable to grant the usergroup due to the concerns about the user being not enough active reverting vandalism/spam across Wikimedia wikis. You are more than welcome to re-request this usergroup once you have gain more experience reverting across Wikimedia wikis. Matiia (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Global rollback for Stanglavine

The following request is closed.
Not ending before 26 August 2018 19:26 UTC

Hello. I started my cross-wiki activity earlier this year and now, after a break, i start again. I have some experience acumulated on this months and a very experience with vandalism combat on my home wiki, pt.Wikipedia. Opened this request motivated for one situation that ocurred with me today, where I was prevented from editing because of a filter. The tools of global rollback would help me. Regards, Stanglavine (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support Ok. He has enough experience. --Irwin talk2me 18:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I do see some reverts, but I'm not sure if it's enough for me to support. I might come back and revisit this if I get the time. --Rschen7754 17:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral less than 15K edits (only 3 projects with more than 20 edits), also the user member in SWMT since April 2018. I think still need more cross wiki experience --Alaa :)..! 19:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough demonstrated need. Nihlus 12:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No consensus to promote. Not done. — regards, Revi 08:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Requests for global sysop permissions

Global sysop for Huji

The following request is closed.
Not ending before 10 August 2018 18:24 UTC

I would like to receive global sysop permissions to use it only for one specific but important use case: updating Abuse Filters across various wikis to make them compliant with the changes in the AbuseFilter extension.

For context, please see T191978. As we are revising the AbuseFilter extension, at times we have no better choice than to change how a function or operator works (we try our best to retain backward compatibility, but sometimes it is inevitable to change functionality). In those situations, we would need to (a) identify all Abuse Filters which may be affected by that change across all WMF wikis, and (b) edit those Filters in a way that would ensure they will continue to work properly once the change is implemented. For (a) we have a process we can use on Phabricator. For (b) I would like to use global sysop rights to perform the necessary edits.

While we can do this with the help of existing global sysops, having a person dedicated to just this task can reduce bureaucracy. Also, not all sysops are "technical" sysops (i.e. not everyone of them is fluent users of AbuseFilter), and having one of the contributing developers of AbuseFilter do this will make the process efficient.

I am nominating myself, because I believe I have already proven to be a trustworthy member of the community. I have been a CheckUser and Oversighter on fawiki for several years where I am also a bureaucrat and sysop, I am or have been a sysop in a number of other WMF projects, I was a member of the Ombudsmen Commission for two years and an auxiliary member of it for an additional two years thereby having access to CU logs across all wikis for four years, I hold +2 merge rights on the entire MediaWiki code base and its extensions, and I have contributed to the AbuseFilter code as well as some of the other sensitive extensions (such as CheckUser and LoginNotify) over the past several years.

Please note that, if approved, I will *not* use global sysop permission for any other use cases, as I am not interested. I want to stay focused only on the AbuseFilter extension. I am also emphasizing this, to point that unlike a typical global sysop request, where continuous cross-wiki edit history is key, I do not think cross-wiki activity would be relevant for my use case (as AbuseFilter is generally not editable to non-sysop users and so I could have only edited filters in projects where I have been a sysop).

Also note that, as you can deduce from the above, I have already identified myself to the WMF to have access to non-public data. Huji (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  Comment I generally support but I think instead we should restore the Abuse filter editors global user group. I requested this back in February and it didn't pan out. Since then, there was a request for something similar by Daimona and now Huji. Can we just restore it already? :) The other issue, correct me if I'm wrong, is that global-sysop doesn't apply to every wiki. Beyond that, you'd have to add yourself to the local abusefilter-manager group (if that's how they have it set up). I agree wholeheartedly with Huji and the need to help with editing filters, I'm in this bucket as well, but global-sysop maybe isn't the right solution MusikAnimal talk 18:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with MusikAnimal that a global abusefilter-manager group would be the preferred answer here. But I also want to point out that I am making this request to reduce bureaucracy, and would prefer not to be diverted to a process (namely, creating of a new global group) that may itself involve a long bureaucratic process.
@MusikAnimal: Even if my request is approved here, as soon as we create that group I will ask to be removed from global sysops and added to that group. Do we have a Phab task for the creation of that group? Huji (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The global user group was apparently removed because no one was in it. It would seem then that recreating it would be not-so controversial. When I first asked about it, it was just me. But now there are three of us (you and Daimona) who would clearly make use of it. I'm unaware of a phab task to recreate the group. I thought stewards can create custom global groups without developer intervention? I'm probably making that up MusikAnimal talk 18:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: You may want to take a look at T150752; I am afraid that is about the ability to edit global filters (filters set on Meta that apply to all wikis), not to be able to globally edit local filters (which is what we are looking after).
@DerHexer: since you were the person who had removed MusikAnimal from abusefilter-modify-global can I ask you to please confirm/reject my interpretation and also comment about how much work it would be to recreate that? Huji (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, DerHexer didn't remove me from the group, they removed the group itself ("delete empty group", was the log summary). The ability to edit filters everywhere was at some point a thing, as evidenced by Abuse filter editors MusikAnimal talk 19:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair point. I also would like to notify User:Kaldari who performed this change to provide some historical context. Huji (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is highly problematic to create custom global user group with "active" permissions without consulting the affected wikis first. For example, the global sysop group has been created as a result of a global RFC and not as a result of a random steward decision. The previous global AF group at least has only been used by some WMF staff to whom the community practices with regards to assignment of user permissions do not really apply for obvious reasons. --Vogone (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree, but here we'd be granting more powerful permissions as a workaround. That can't be better? People in this abuse filter editor group don't have to stay there. Say, some new AbuseFilter features come about, we're temporarily added to the global user group, so we can fix all the filters globally on everyone's behalf (because having them do it, along with the timing constraint of deployments, etc., would be a nightmare). Furthermore there can be a serious impact on site performance if there are badly implemented filters, and many wikis don't have the expertise to fix these issues. So the need for this global user group is certainly there MusikAnimal talk 19:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I would not have any objections if such action would be announced in advance on all affected wikis (e.g. by using mass message) and giving the communities some time to react. If the planned edits are indeed not controversial, then there likely won't be any objections by these communities either. This would be a requirement very similar to that of the interface editor group (only act after ensuring there is no objection on the wiki you are going to edit). --Vogone (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Like I said: this would require a bureaucratic process that can take months. So, until then, I would like to maintain my request for global sysop rights. Huji (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
To further clarify -- I'm not suggesting we create a global user group that blanket permits us to create/modify filters to deal with local issues. Instead, we're talking about fixing filters so they don't break, or affect runtime performance of everyone who edits. These things don't necessarily require knowledge of what the filter is meant to do, only the implementation itself, such as the ordering of conditions, variables/functions used, etc. There will definitely be instances where you're unsure if your "fixes" will work, and of course that would require consulting previous authors of the filter. I'm sure you'd procedurally let them know of any changes you made, too. So overall an RfC for this user group is probably still needed, as you suggest, but I can only guess temporarily creating it is a reasonable alternative to using the more powerful global-sysop (though again I think global-sysop doesn't apply to large wikis?) MusikAnimal talk 19:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, there are Special:WikiSets. :-) --Vogone (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, now I know where I can find that without combing through InitialiseSettings.php (if it's even in there) :) So here it seems global-sysop doesn't give Huji what they need, anyway? I stand by my recommendation of using a dedicated global user group, but for the record, I still   Support giving Huji global-sysop :) MusikAnimal talk 20:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  Support - Regardless of the global abuse filter editor group issue, I think Huji would be an excellent candidate for global sysop. He has the needed experience, community trust, and technical knowledge to be successful in this role. I would, however, also support the resurrection of the global abuse filter editors group, if there is more support for going in that direction. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
First, I   Support Huji for this role, no doubts. But, more important, I very strongly agree on the need of a global filter editor group. You guys already explained why such a group would be wonderful to have, so I won't add anything about that. However, I believe that we should start the process for re-creating it as soon as possible (since, as pointed out, it could take months). I also would love to join such a group in order to help keeping filters fresh and working, while I don't think global adminship would be fine in my case. And, after all, it doesn't really make sense that the less powerful group with abusefilter-modify and related rights is global sysop. --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I have no issues with this. Creating the abuse filter editors group (not really re-creating because it was only populated with developers and not open to the community when it did exist) is a barrel of fun that we could choose to engage in, but for now global sysop would allow the requestee to help out. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if it would really help, given the list of wikis where global sysops don't actually have sysop rights. Still better than nothing though. --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Daimona Eaytoy: I think large wikis will expect to have the option to opt out of the future "abusefilter-manager" group too. That's alright though. The issue we are trying to solve is not with respect to a wiki like English Wikipedia, with hundreds of active sysops; there, you can (privately) ask the sysops to update a filter and they will likely do so within a day or two; the issue is with the large number wikis who don't have the ability to have a turn-around-time of hours to a few days. Only there we would like to intervene centrally. Huji (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, they would still be able to opt-out, but abusefilter editor is way less invasive than sysop, thus I think wikis will be less likely to opt out. Anyway, I agree that this right would still help, and at the moment is the best we can get. --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Capay (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support no concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, meets the criteria for get the global sysop right, no concerns. Marshmallych 16:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alaa :)..! 07:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support: Even if the request was made with only a single purpose in mind, Huji is trustworthy enough for this permission, no concerns. Alex Shih (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Regardless of the circumstances, the user is trusted for the GS permission and I don't see why have objections here —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 03:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support no concerns. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 03:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Irwin talk2me 19:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rufet Turkmen (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for both GS and any AbuseFilter permission he needs to help the projects. Legoktm (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -FASTILY 22:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support + --►Cekli829 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Matiia (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
PS: As a matter of follow-up, I invite you all to see Huji (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Requests for global IP block exemption

Global IP block exempt for Tian2992

I use a personal-run IPv6 tunnel to access, which is affected by a IP block ban.--Tian2992 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tian2992: Any ban? --Alaa :)..! 08:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@علاء: The general ban on DO IPv6 Servers affects me. Tian2992 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Editing from your IP address range (2604:A880:800:0:0:0:0:0/48) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 09:33, 2 April 2020 by Vituzzu ( for the following reason: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by tian2992 (talk)
  Done --Alaa :)..! 07:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Ken_Ookami_Horo

I am live in PRC and using some proxy software to visit Wikimedia Projects on devices which cannot edit hosts file. However, Some IP addresses which my proxy used is blocked globally. So may I request a exempt to edit? , thanks, --Ken_Ookami_Horo(talk|talk on zhwp|Email me) 02:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for HastaLaVi2

Hi, I am from Turkey and for a long while I was using Turkish Wikipedia via VPN. But when I create a new article and try to merge it with its wikidata item, it blocks me. So may I request this exemption? ~ Z (m) 15:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done.--HakanIST (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Prof.Einstein

I have problems with using VPN services Prof.Einstein (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Cekli829

Hi, I am from Azerbaijan, I use a VPN sometimes and I have trip to Turkey in the coming months. So may I request this exemption? --►Cekli829 13:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done, safe travels!--HakanIST (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Nina Eger

Nina asked me to request this as she is currently unable to log into her account (lost password, reset impossible with IP-block) through the VPN she has to use. This (also including editing) has been a frequent problem for months now. If you need confirmation, please contact her using the E-Mail function --Didym (talk)

It is usually preferable to directly contact us via Special:Contact/stewards, but this is fine as well. — regards, Revi 15:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Man77

For a couple of weeks I have experienced the effect of global IP blocks against Avoided which prevent me from editing Wikidata. Thanks to the block I cannot request locally on Wikidata, for some reason, however, I can edit here. I consider myself an experienced and trusted user (currently sysop of dewiki) who can handle this special right well. Thanks, --→ «« Man77 »» [de] 15:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  DoneAjraddatz (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for CopperSulfate

I come from Mainland of China, and have to use Proxy IP or something else to bypass Great Firewall. However, altho I have IP block exempt on zhwiki, it's inconvenient for me to edit wikidata, enwiki, jawiki and so on. That's why I want to get global IP block exempt (so as to contribute better and more conveniently). Thanks, --CopperSulfate (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done, Linedwell [talk] 18:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Linedwell:Uh-huh? Why it doesn't say I have Global IP block exempt there? --CopperSulfate (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The page you linked is only for Meta local right. You were given global IPBE which can be seen here. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 14:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Pelham17

I use a VPN pretty much all the time. There are many times that I might make a small edit or addition to an article, but when I try to edit, I am usually told that my IP is blocked. I'd like to contribute to both the English and Simple versions of Wikipedia (and possibly Commons), but it's highly unlikely that I'll be able to turn my VPN off with regularity to do so. Thanks. --Pelham17 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Comment: The account is registered on 15:02, 30 December 2010 (7 years ago). So far 3 edits globally as of now including the request & I'm not convinced. Regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  Comment: I know how it looks and I completely understand your viewpoint. When I first joined, I was a teacher and wanted to help out but soon learned I had no time. Now I find myself in a position where I read and edit news on a daily basis. I frequently see things that I can add to articles or small improvements I can make. I may never be a power contributor, but I value Wikipedia highly and would like to give back. But since I use a VPN constantly in my workflow, it's difficult to contribute when VPNs are always blocked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
We usually assume good faith. Granted. Please note that single abuse will strip your GIPBE off. — regards, Revi 16:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Revi for wonderful comment ! I really appreciate it. Regards, — TBhagat (contribs | talk) 16:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  Comment: Thanks. I appreciate your trust. I have zero intention of abusing it. Cheers. Pelham17

Global IP block exemption for 屈原蟲

I am a patroller and rollbacker at zhwiki. Sometimes I use mobile phone to edit different wiki but some sites are blocked, sometimes the IP address used has been global banned. I want to request the permissions of the GIPBE here to conveniently use the for editing different wiki, I hope to get authorization. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 屈原蟲 (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for evs

Hello! I am and editor and rollbacker in ruwiki, also I'm using wikidata, commons and some other wikiprojects. I need to use VPN, but it IP adress is in global IP block list. Please add me into IP block exempt, thanks, --evs 💬 13:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 18:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Ameen Akbar

Hi! I am SYSOP at Urdu Wikipedia and also contribute to English wiki. I have problem in editing at English wiki from some days. I am seeing this message "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from has been blocked (disabled) by Primefac for the following reason(s): This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia." I am login but could not edit on English Wiki, Please remove the block from this ban network or give me exemption, thanks, --Ameen Akbar (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Not done this range blocked locally, so you should ask for local IP block exempt, probably @TonyBallioni: can help here --Alaa :)..! 08:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a wide CheckUser range block for spamming. On IPBE isn’t usually granted without talking to CheckUsers. I’ve notified the blocking CU and asked him to review the request. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Its done, Thank you all. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for User:Mertmetin96

Hi! I am an turkish wikipedian who generally contributes as a translator in I also contribute for en.wikibook and e.wikiversity. Because of the ban applied on in turkey I was using eduroam to connect wiki. However I cannot do this each time. So I request an global IP block exempt to access easier and frequently to wiki projects via VPN. Mertmetin96 (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. — regards, Revi 16:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Tidoni

Editing using VPN, thanks, --Tidoni (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 07:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Саид Мисарбиев

Hello! At the participant of a problem with an input on wikipedia its operator has blocked all sites of fund. He needs the global flag "IP block exempt". --Дагиров Умар (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support This is well-known user (and sysop) from ce.wikipedia. Currently, he is experiencing constant problems with regular access to Wikimedia sites (it seems that they are unofficially blocked in Chechnya). This flag is needed for access through TOR.--Kaganer (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 09:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Lolitacon

I live in mainland China and have to use Proxy IP to bypass the Great Firewall, the IP blocks prevent me from editing Wikipedia. Although I have IPBE on zhwp, it’s inconvenient for me to edit enwp, jawp and so on. That is why I want to get the global IPBE. I consider that I can handle this special right well. Thank you very much. --Lolitacon (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 08:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Surprizi

Hi! I am ka.wikipedia editor (since 2009) and ab.wikipedia administrator (was ka.Wiktionary administrator too). Now, when I have time at my work I use computer to work in wikipedia. please unblock my work ip and give me work hard. :) Thanks.--Surprizi (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Support user Surprizi one of the most active editors of the Georgian Wikipedia, and also the administrator of the Abkhazian Wikipedia. His contribution to these two wikis are very great. Unfortunately due to the fact that his work IP address is globally blocked, he can not currently work in Wikipedia when he is at work. P.S. Locally in the Georgian Wikipedia, he has IP block exempt status --Mehman 97 19:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  Done --Alaa :)..! 20:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Wildly boy

I come from mainland China,I have to use proxy to participate in editors. So I need the GIPBE to edit.Thank you. --Wildly boy (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 09:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Ruhubelent

I am editing Turkmen wikipedia through VPN as I am in Turkey and I have block exemption there, I sometimes need to connect pages from other wikis. As I have no IP block exemption on other wikis I am unable to link pages. I rarely edit on other wikis as well. I know the vandalizm I have committed on Turkish wiki may make you think of denying me IP exemption, note that I truly regret what I have done there and I apologized to all of them on my talk page. I will never commit it again. Sincerely yours, kind regards, --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you asked for unblock? Ruslik (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Ruslik0, No, I have not asked as I have committed vandalizm. It would be pointless to ask. Is it necessary to get unblocked on a wiki a user has been blocked so that he can get global IP exemption? If so, I will try negotiating. --Ruhubelent (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Note that I truly regret committing vandalizm, Ruslik0. I always knew I should not damage Wikipedia, I appreciate Wikipedia. I do not have enmity towards it, I was just trying to protest their treatment towards me. I know I should not damage Wikipedia to protest its administrators. I regret it and will never commit it again, I can not ask for unblock because my block is now deserved one. Sincerely yours, --Ruhubelent (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
UPDATE: Asked for unblock. Rejected. The admin said it is not possible as of now. --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not comfortable granting an IP block exemption to anyone blocked for vandalism anywhere. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik:, I actually and initially was twice banned for no reason except political agenda. I raised objections to the political agenda Turkish Wikipedia's authorities have been insisting on. They initially banned me for political agenda with no reason and explanation, in return I protested by flooding. That is what is meant by vandalizm committed by me. The adversary edit-warred me on English Wikipedia but quitted there as they did not have any arguement for discussion but on the TR wiki they just banned as they have power there. Please, consider again. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@HakanIST: what's your opinion here? --Alaa :)..! 08:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
User is blocked indefinitely on Turkish Wikipedia due to sockpuppetry, I don't think GIPBE is warranted here.--HakanIST (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  Not done per above --Alaa :)..! 13:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for PQ77wd

I come from Guangdong, China. I'm using the open proxy to edit the Cantonese Wikipedia due to the GFW have blocked for Cantonese Wikipedia in China.

Due to the GFW block update. I have change the "hosts" file in C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc to visit the Cantonese Wikipedia. it told that IP address is in a range which has been blocked by GFW for changing "hosts" file since Aug. 24th., 2018. It told the errors about "Safety Accession Failed". Now I want to edit the topics in Cantonese Wikipedia. It told the information about "IP address for have blocked" and CANNOT edit the topics when I use the Open Proxy.

Now I want to unblock the IP addresses for editing Cantonese Wikipedia due to the GFW have already using the newest inaccessible technical procedures in China. Thanks.--PQ77wd (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

GIPBE already granted. — regards, Revi 08:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, The Japanese Wikipedia was kept blocked by GFW. We CANNOT visit or view, or edit the topics in Japanese Wikipedia due to this GFW updated its inaccessible technical procedures reason.--PQ77wd (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Shwangtianyuan

I would like to ask an Global Exception for all wikis for my account. I am living in China (Mainland) for now and I need to use ShadowsocksR to visit all wikis by Wikimedia successfully. But when I use ShadowsocksR to edit, I always blocked (I have GIPBE already for Chinese Wikipedia and Cantonese Wikipedia). So, I would like to ask an Global Exception for all wikis for my account. Thanks.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. — regards, Revi 17:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for MHIRM

Hi, I'm living in Turkey and I mostly contribute to Turkish Wikipedia since 2011. However, I can't edit English Wikipedia because I'm using open proxy. I access Wikipedia using VPN and I already have an IP block exempt on Turkish Wikipedia. I kindly request you to give me a global IP block exempt to contribute other Wikipedia versions. Thanks, --MHIRM (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. — regards, Revi 08:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Requests for global rename permissions

Global rename for Ignacio2403

The following request is closed.
Not ending before 5 August 2018 18:25 UTC
  •   Comment Any explanations why you want this permission? -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 18:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no statement, less than 3000 edits and registered since 2 months only! --Alaa :)..! 19:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Having no nomination statement gets an instant   Oppose from me. Even if you did provide one, your relatively short tenure is enough to make me oppose anyways. Global renamer is not a position to take lightly and requires many years of trust and experience before a request for the user right will even be considered. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not enough overall project experience. — xaosflux Talk 21:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. Concerns with experience -FASTILY 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This user is not experienced enough for GR rights. Also, note the numerous failed requests of rights on his homewiki ([1] [2] [3] [4] and three more) --Stïnger (会話) 22:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC).
And the last declined request. --Stïnger (会話) 13:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC).
  •   Strong oppose Per Stïnger. The user doesn't yet understand the scope of the permission. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 22:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Little experience (2420 edits) on their home Wikipedia,, where they have a recent block from May, and have no advanced permissions despite multiple requests, see Stïnger's post. No experience from es:Wikipedia:Cambiar el nombre de usuario. Almost no experience on other projects. A misplaced A3 like this on further suggests that requester should allow themself time to learn the basics and just enjoy being part of the project. Sam Sailor 15:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose User lacks experience. Esteban16 (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per everyone else above, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Little experience (2472 edits) on home Wikipedia and almost no experience on other projects. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Lack of experience. No nomination statement. -- Taketa (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose per above, lack of experience. Marshmallych 16:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. Can we formally enact the snow procedure and close this request already. Alex Shih (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Per above. XenrøsE 02:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Rufet Turkmen (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  Not promoted due to lack of support. Please don't be discouraged from requesting again in the future should you address the concerns presented in the discussion. Best regards, Defender (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Global rename for Conde Edmond Dantès

The following request is closed.
Not ending before 19 August 2018 09:51 UTC

  Comment Hello, I have been editing since 2014 and I am currently an administrator and bureaucrat on my homewiki ( I have more than 30 thousand editions in this one, and I participate of other projects regularly. I want to have permission because of the lack of editors on, because Érico (talk · contribs) is responding to requests alone. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 09:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support Bureaucrat on Portuguese Wikipedia. Trusted user to perform this role. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks trustworthy. Alex Shih (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support No concerns. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 04:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I've worked with Edmond Dantès extensively and have absolutely no concerns when it comes to his potential behaviour when undertaking global renamings. I'm confident that his work will be of the highest order, demonstrating competency and composure. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support No concerns.--►Cekli829 13:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Looks good to me, and it certainly sounds like could do with more renaming help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rufet Turkmen (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Trusted and oldest user. Your help is very welcome on our local project. Good look! Stanglavine (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support: has a good reason to request the permission, and a brief look at their history on gives me no reason to not trust them. Sam Sailor 07:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very experienced for this role. Érico (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Trusted--Biplab Anand (Talk) 15:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -FASTILY 22:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable. I'm going to support this request. --Stïnger (会話) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC).
  •   Support --Irwin talk2me 22:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support no concerns from me. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 11:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Trijnstel and Masti: can you add the user to Global renamers mailing list, please? --Alaa :)..! 18:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Email send, thanks for the ping. @Conde Edmond Dantès: Please reply. :) Trijnsteltalk 18:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
And...   Done :) Trijnsteltalk 19:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Requests for other global permissions

add global oathauth-tester member for Sebastian Smarslik

I would like to test the Wikipedia Two-factor authentication, thanks, --Sebastian Smarslik (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done, Linedwell [talk] 05:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

add oathauth-tester for 72

I'd like to enable 2FA on my account for added security. I am familiar with 2FA, and have read the relevant information available here on meta. Thanks --72 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 14:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Basvb

Thanks, --Krd 13:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for Palnatoke

Thanks, --Krd 13:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

add 2FA for Twilight Magic

I need to add more security to my account by Two-factor authentication, thanks, --Twilight Magic (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 11:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for דוג'רית

Thanks, --Krd 06:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done.--HakanIST (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

add oathauth-tester for Afootpluto

I would like TFA to make my account more secure. , thanks, --Afootpluto (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Amortias

Agent no longer active, thanks --Ruthven (msg) 08:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for FastLizard4

Agent no longer active, thanks --Ruthven (msg) 08:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

add global OTRS member for Sebastian Wallroth

Thanks, --Krd 12:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Stryn (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

oathauth-tester for Paul Ewe

Thanks, --Paul Ewe (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done @Paul Ewe: please read this page --Alaa :)..! 08:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

oathauth-tester for 十六夜砕月

I want to more security for my account, thanks, --十六夜砕月 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done @十六夜砕月: please read this page --Alaa :)..! 15:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

restore global OTRS member for Mike Peel

OTRS agent back in service; thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 17:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --rxy (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

See deleted pages cross wiki for MoiraMoira

The following request is closed.

As a global sysop I help out with cross wiki vandals. Since those often are active with unwanted matters like spam, promo and vandalism cross wiki it would be a great help if I could see deleted pages cross wiki. Now I only can see them on my home wiki and those accessable to global sysops but cross wiki vandals occur everywhere often. That would help vandal fighting, knowing what sockpuppet or IP did what in the past and thus being able to act more proactively when researching matters. Thanks, --MoiraMoira (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  • One of the reasons why the global sysop tools are not global is that many "opt-out" wikis do not want global sysops to have admin-level access on their wikis. If you want to see deleted pages cross-wiki, the most efficient way would be to apply for stewardship in the next Steward elections, but to me it does not look like there is any basis to allow "opt-out" exemptions for any individual global sysops. Regards, --Vogone (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The only group that currently exists and would let MoiraMoira view deleted content (there are a lot of other groups with enough permissions to do so, but that are innapropriate to grant outside election or WMF decision) would be the delete-global global group. However it consist on active rights as well and Vogone's concerns do apply there. On the other hand, I can trust MoiraMoira not to make use of those on opted-out of GS wikis. Notwithstanding, the delete-global permission was created for a very specific purpose and user (synchbot) and I'm not sure if we can/want to expand access to it. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I certainly trust MoiraMoira, but I'm with Vogone (and MarcoAurelio) here. I've got nothing more to say - nothing personal. Trijnsteltalk 18:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that stewardship is the better answer here. Pathoschild's global group is incredibly specific in scope and not suitable for these purposes. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Projects where you can't use this should already have sufficient local sysops to deal with their project so I don't support creating a new special global group solely for you. — xaosflux Talk 22:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I am totally fine with you having this or any other global permissions around (steward rights included :p) However I also believe that this usergroup is not meant for other purposes than the specific one it have been created for. RadiX 03:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  Not done due to lack of consensus. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

GIE for Isarra

The following request is closed.

Hi, I was previously granted global interface editor rights in order to facilitate the deployment of the Timeless skin (Steward requests/Global permissions/2017-08#Global interface editor for Isarra) - the skin is now deployed globally, but development is ongoing, and due to the nature of a skin as the interface of a wiki, bugfixes in particular will often require onwiki changes and it's not always feasible/sensible to put the locals to the trouble for an experimental skin (though I will admit I did slightly mess this up once - I'll try to do better about making it clear just why I'm making the changes in the future). Along with Timeless, I also have a few other projects where these rights have proven invaluable due to current permissions requirements for configuring content models, editing json, and other mw-namespace configuration - for the deployment of CollaborationKit in particular it will get very silly if I can't even help people set up/reset their test hubs myself, and will need to get some other admin to do it for me every time. (Yes, this requirement is a bit silly, and it is generally planned to be fixed in core, but who knows when that will actually happen.) -— Isarra 17:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also note that this hasn't technically expired yet, but is set to expire tomorrow - which is a little weird. My +2 as a developer doesn't expire, so why does this, a thing that probably a lot more people are actually paying attention to? -— Isarra 17:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  Support --Krenair (talkcontribs) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - note that all global permissions with active rights and where wikis cannot opt out are only granted for one year (or maybe longer, depending on how brave the closing steward is). All that's required to renew access is a five-day discussion here, which tend to be very simple. Thanks for continuing to help out. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    Wikis can't opt out from using Vector, either, what with it being the default skin and all, but I have indefinite access to that. For developers this does nothing more than show an unfair bias against community contributors - staff do not need to jump through these extra hoops, so why do we, when we've already demonstrated the competency and reliability to be granted access to the repositories themselves? I don't care if it's simple, it simply should not be necessary. -— Isarra 18:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    +1 (or maybe even +2!) to this. Prior to the technical changes implemented to MediaWiki a version or two ago, user rights were non-expiring by default and that's how they should be. Revoking access should be a "last resort" and not the default — to be used in extreme cases, such as a compromised account or a user's controversial, policy-violating, long-term behavior; not that there needs to be a discussion every year whether a volunteer can keep their rights or not. I'll never come to understand how making estabilished volunteers jump through a million hoops and then some is not just acceptable but the norm. Where and how would one propose an amendment/exception to this policy for cases like this (an estabilished developer requesting rights for development reasons)? --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 00:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with expiring user right (we can't even grant global permissions temporally, for now). It was decided by the community that we should grant this permission for one year. We can change the policy, of course, and a discussion on the policy talk page or a RfC is the way to do it. Matiia (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    If that's the policy, then the current policy already seems to cover this: "By default, appointment will be temporary, lasting any time up to a year ..." Wouldn't this 'default' suggest it can also be set for longer, as a non-default value, if it makes sense to do so? -— Isarra 04:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, it could be possible, but it'd depend of the closing steward criteria and their interpretation of the policy. We'd need a very clear consensus about granting this permission permanently, if that's what you want. Matiia (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Putting non-urgent changes in to production with a "Screw it I'm just going to" comment on a project with plenty of active administrators isn't the attitude I'm looking for in a GEI. That being said, production developer access is already riskier so I don't think they will cause any intentional trouble and could be positively productive with this access. If granted I hope you follow through on a commitment to adequately explain the changes you are implementing. — xaosflux Talk 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Yes, this was the 'once' I was referring to. We discussed and clarified the matter at the time, and seemed to be in agreement about expectations for the future, so now I'm actually a bit confused... what exactly are you after, here? -— Isarra 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    Is it really worth opposing over one incident on one wiki that was pretty quickly cleared up? – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    As noted above, I've only marked this as a "weak" oppose, primarily due to Isarra acknowledging that there are better ways to engage with local projects; however that recent incident along with comments above give me the impression that Isarra still does not think that community policies and controls are important. — xaosflux Talk 22:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    I don't blame her; the whole wiki-federalism thing and the bureaucracy here are a bit ridiculous. I'm more concerned about her actual actions, and if one problematic edit summary is the only issue from a year of access then I'm not concerned. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    I'm a little concerned that you seem to think developers are not part of the wider Wikimedia community, and that our community policies and controls have no bearing on technical spaces either... we are, I admitted I messed up, and the only way we can actually make our products truly effective is by working together with users across all communities. I'll be the first to admit that some people seem to like to make this difficult, on both sides - perhaps this is part of why there has historically been so much 'community consultation' instead of actual inter-community involvement in the design/development process of many features - but I'd argue it's necessary, so here I am, going through this community process. -— Isarra 22:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Ajraddatz: an edit summary may have helped. The problem I see is that Isarra raised an issue at an appropriate local forum, then for whatever reason decided that after less then 4 hours of waiting they should just implement a production change with an unhelpful quip. As far as "just one issue" a challenge I'm seeing is there isn't much to compare this to: edit-wise in the last year (warning:slow link) I'm only seeing 7 uses of this access, 4 all related to the incident above on enwiki, 2 in July on enwiki, and one on frwikt last year. I'm not going to dig though logs on hundreds of projects looking for non-edits, but this also makes me question the actual need. That there are productive technical edits and engagement with the dev-community is why my opposition is "weak" instead of normal. — xaosflux Talk 02:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Having worked with Isarra in the past, I can vouch for her technical skills as well as her passion for improving the sites as well as developing the software together with the community, for the community. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 00:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, though, looking at your cross-wiki edits you didn't need these rights many times (at least not outside of English Wikipedia). Stryn (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support: Of course! Isarra is long-time volunteer who's willing to donate additional time and energy. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. No concerns. Nihlus 12:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm extending the right for another year.   Granted for 1 year to expire on 2019-08-27. I do not see a concrete consensus to extend it beyond the standard 1 year expiration per policy. — regards, Revi 08:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank. -— Isarra 03:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for NativeForeigner

Thanks, --Krd 07:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 08:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Sarah

Thanks, --Krd 08:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 08:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

remove global OTRS member for Kaare

Thanks, --Krd 06:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Alaa :)..! 06:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Expiration of temporarily granted rights

Clerking note: It doesn't seem as if this is normally handled this way. But as long as the bots are not running and we have to manually manage the archiving, I want to make sure the items here do not get lost somewhere.
Items here were previously posted at SRAT, and are being archived after the rights expired (or are renewed). StevenJ81 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Felipe Schenone/Sophivorus

  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2017-07-25. —MarcoAurelio 09:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Extended till 23 July 2018. Ruslik (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Username changed to Sophivorus during the term.
  • Rights were temporary, and removed today, by steward -revi. StevenJ81 (talk) (clerking) 18:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)