Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 November 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Hello everyone, I am Hasley. A few months ago I joined the SWMT. Since then, I have been active doing countervandalism, mainly finding LTAs and cross-wiki spammers and patrolling small projects from #cvn-sw, SWViewer and RTRC. I think global rollback could be very useful for me . Kind regards, —Sgd.Hasley 21:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I' m currently rollbacker and patroller on cswiki, rollbacker and pending changes reviewer on enwiki and autopatroller on few projects. I started cross-wiki patrol through SWViewer. Throughout the process I have gained experience in removing vandalism made in various languages (even if I don't speak them). I would like to get global rollback to facilitate my work against vandalism. These rights would be useful for example to suppress abuse filters, which sometimes forbids me from editing. I would also definitely use the right markbotedit (for example, if multiple pages are vandalized at the same time). If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! -MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Active in SMWT. Masum Reza☎ 04:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Support good work.--Turkmentalk 08:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak support: I expect more experience for gr, but good to go. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak support: he works crosswiki works since a month crosswiki--WikiBayer👤💬 09:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm J ansari , I was an admin on hi.Wikivoyage and hi.wikitionery, currently I am Rollbacker and reviewer on Hindi wiki and autopatroller on several wiki projects, member of SWMT and every day active in the fighting cross-wiki spam/vandalism. I have experience reverting vandalism using rollback button and RTRC, swviewer, Irc, tool in the wikis where I already have it. I usually patrol In recent change and sometimes to remove vandalism I have to undo multiple changes made by the same user, so rollback would greatly help in this and overall, which will also save time as well as increase my ability to do more for the project. Thank you! -J. AnsariTalk 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Support: User is trustworthy for this role. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Support trusted.--Turkmentalk 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Question: You stated "I was an admin" on two projects. Can you clarify why you are no longer an admin on these projects? Thanks for taking the time to answer :) ~riley (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: Both projects no need local admin then (Even projects have no much users activities) because global admin working well and accordingly so I did not apply to re adminship if projects need to admin. I may apply again it. If you need more clarification ask feel free, Thanks for your comment -J. AnsariTalk 05:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@J ansari: Could you elaborate more on why you were desysoped on those projects? Masum Reza☎ 09:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: My adminship time was only three months on both projects. after the expired I did not apply to re adminship because no needed or no reason, thank you! -J. AnsariTalk 09:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I am seeing a denied request with the linked discussion showing opposition because you did not accomplish much with your admin permissions. Is this correct? You have said twice above that you did not apply for re-adminship. ~riley (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak support Going to assume good faith, but my support is still weakened per the above as potential integrity issues are a red flag for me. Solid crosswiki experience, member of SWMT, and a dissection of various reverts all look good. ~riley(talk) 08:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I would be in support if you hadn't lied, twice, about why you're no longer an administrator on those projects. This does not demonstrate to me the level of trust required. Vermont (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Has done a reasonable amount of cross-wiki work, but there was no need to lie to us. Neutral per Vermont and Riley. Masum Reza☎ 12:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Neutral While (denied != not applied) and it's harder to give you the benefit of doubt (regarding possible misinterpretation etc), that's the only issue. Leaderboard (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak support Being a hiwiki user I had positive interactions with them, and I think they did not purposely hide that the sysop request was denied. Reason for weak support is because I think it's little bit early and they haven't shown much in crosswiki patrolling. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support can be trusted --DannyS712 (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak support --𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝓑𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣👤💬 10:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, per Vermont and 1997kB.--BRP ever 11:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support - I feel his intention wasn't to lie or hide regarding his past adminship. He has missed to explain us well. To be honest, I have positive interactions with him on hiwiki, Facebook and IRC for the very first time. Good start with patrolling so fine by me. Keep it up! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not so sure that he "missed" us to explain. He edited this page 20 minutes ago and did not bother to explain himself. Or he doesn't have an answer? This is very concerning.Masum Reza☎ 05:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Because your admin status on both projects achieved nothing. You appear to be just a "Hat Collector" and succeeded in getting rights on both the projects because there were not much users to support or oppose. And mentioning here that you were ADMIN on those projects is just a flowery thing.--SM7--talk-- 16:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not that bad, small wikis have very little work that needs mop. Let us not forget that we are all volunteers here.--BRP ever 02:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose after much consideration: later and not now--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝓑𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣👤💬 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support I don't agree with your opinion about local admins in small projects but I think it would be very helpful to have a global sysop who understands another Indian language. --Holder (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Global sysop? -- CptViraj (📧) 13:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Done - weak consensus to promote. Thanks for volunteering. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all! -J. AnsariTalk 02:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I have been a sysop on English Wikipedia for 14 years, and sysop on Wikidata for 15 months. I am mostly active on Wikidata and on English-language projects, but my Wikidata work often leads me to investigate cross-project issues on other projects, including (with appropriate caution) those in languages with which I am unfamiliar. I often find cases where a user has caused disruption across multiple projects, or where facts are inconsistent between the corresponding Wikipedia articles, and do my best to follow up everywhere.
I anticipate using global rollback in the following ways:
Edit as autoconfirmed to bypass pending changes and certain edit filters, e.g. for removing large amounts of content. I have found cases where I have been prevented from reverting vandalism because of the edit filters on a particular project.
Rollback edits by cross-wiki vandals
My wiki philosophy is to be cautious in tool use, encouraging of new users, and responsive to criticism. I also have the privilege to be a real-life mentor to a number of wiki-editors, again including some who use languages in which I am not fluent. I use 2FA. I am not a member of SWMT. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Your request for GS was denied/or withdrawn not even a week ago. Why you are applying for another global right when you don't have enough cross-wiki experience? My suggestion would be to wait a while, use SWViewer or similar tool to revert cross-wiki vandalism and work on small wikis. Until you gain sufficient experience, Oppose. By the way there is another global group with the skip captcha right. You may wish to apply for that instead. But that is only for visually impaired persons IIRC. Masum Reza☎ 06:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100:CAPTCHA exemptions: another accepted rationale for granting this right: : Because one is often asked to enter CAPTCHA when editing other wikis (and not be a bot), thanks to NigelSoft. SWViewer is interesting for rb (local or gr) or gs. —Eihel (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: Thanks for the response. You will note from the link I supplied that I explicitly withdrew that request in favour of this one, in response to the feedback I was given.
Regarding cross-wiki experience, I'm sure there are many editors with more cross-wiki experience than me, but I'm curious to know what your threshold is. Bovlb (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Unlike global sysop group, global rollbacker group is true global and let's the right holder use it on any wiki. You are familiar with big wikis, but the scope of global rollbacker is patrolling all wikis even smaller ones. I am pretty sure that you wouldn't abuse this right but it's pretty easy to mess things up without having sufficient experience. Working cross-wiki helps the candidates of GR and GD to learn more about those wikis. If you are not going to be an SWMT member, then there's no point in granting these rights to you. You should ask for these rights on each wikis where you need them. Masum Reza☎ 18:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: Please forgive my directness, but you don't seem to have responded to my second point: I am really interested to know how you measure cross-wiki activity and what your threshold is.
Thanks for the suggestion. I could certainly seek rollbacker one-by-one on the Wikis where I encounter problems most frequently, but I don't have a specific set of wikis in which I work. I am seeking global permissions because I do not want to limit the set of projects to which I can contribute efficiently when performing cross-wiki countervandalism.
If you are not going to be an SWMT member, then there's no point in granting these rights to you. If this is a de facto policy, then perhaps it should be made explicit. Bovlb (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for missing your second question. I measured your cross-wiki activity using these tools. Per , as of now, you have
More than one edit in 28 wikis
More than 5 edits in 7 wikis.
More than 10 edits in 7 wikis
More than 25 edits in 6 wikis.
More than 50 edits in 4 wikis.
More than 100 edits in 3 wikis.
More than 1000 edits in 2 wikis.
More than 10000 edits in 1 wiki.
Also see StalkToy. Your global contributions analysis shows that you are not active in those wikis where you contributed in the past. I could not possibly go to every wiki and check your contributions there. These tools are very very slow and sometimes they return blank response, I have to admit. But GUC tool is more faster IMO. There could be other tools out there. Also I do not have any specific GR criteria. Masum Reza☎ 04:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose An crosswiki experience was requested for gs, for gr too. —Eihel (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Trusted user with good judgement, no doubt, but limited crosswiki experience. I am unable to support someone for GR if they are not interested in being a member of SWMT. ~riley (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: Thanks. I choose to spend my limited volunteer time primarily as a sysop on Wikidata and related cross-wiki actions, and I am making this request in support of that. I'm sure the SWMT does great work, but I know from experience that I should not take on another commitment that might stretch me too thin, hence my clarity on the subject above. I am surprised to learn that this might be considered to be a necessary precondition. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Users must be demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities (for example, as active members of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team) and make heavy use of revert on many wikis
Your application reads, " I often find cases", which implies you are stumbling across vandalism or spam, rather than actively monitoring it. Twinkle likely will better suit your needs. ~riley(talk) 18:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: Thank you for clarifying. I read that reference as providing membership in SWMT only as an example of how to demonstrate cross-wiki activity, not as a hard requirement. My record clearly shows cross-wiki activity and reversion on multiple projects in multiple languages. Maybe my level of cross-wiki activity is too low for you, but I'm having real trouble here understanding how this is measured, or what the threshold would be. The policy you cite provides no specific guidance.
I'm not sure what distinction you seek to draw between monitoring for vandalism and finding it. I primarily monitor for vandalism on Wikidata. When I find it, I perform cross-wiki checks, and often find more elsewhere. Sometimes I encounter difficulties in reverting it, which I am seeking to reduce here by requesting global permissions.
Thanks for the suggestion to use Twinkle. I was unaware that it could be enabled globally across all projects (and the documentation I just looked at does not mention this possibility). Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal.js is what you are looking for - it will allow you to undo more than one edit by the same editor (aka rollback) similar to how it functions on enwiki. In response to your question about how I am measuring your cross-wiki activity, crossactivity illustrates a low threshold of activity. ~riley(talk) 21:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@~riley: Thanks for the Twinkle pointer; I will try that out. Your crossactivity link just returns an empty response for me; I have been assuming that the tool was broken for everyone. Bovlb (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@WikiBayer: I have read and re-read your comment above, and I'm afraid I am unable to determine its meaning, and hence to understand the basis for your strong opposition. Could you please clarify? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
You have recently request for the global sysop permissions and you have been said that you need global work for global premissions as well. Since the candidacy has not changed, but you are now request for a global permissions again--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝓑𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣👤💬 18:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that "global work" is a prerequisite for both global sysop and global rollback, but the latter has a higher threshold, hence your oppose on my application for global sysop, and your strong oppose here. Bovlb (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think GR will serve your needs (as your original request said that you wanted to delete pages cross-wiki); even GS is better than that. My preference would be for you to apply for global delete instead. Leaderboard (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@WikiBayer: It's not set in stone, and I think he has a valid use-case to request a right this specific. Leaderboard (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Thanks for the feedback. I think you must have misread or misremembered something, as I have no need to delete pages cross-wiki and did not request it. I did spend some time expanding on the use case for examining deleted pages, primarily to justify why I was requesting global sysop rather than global rollback. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bovlb: I apologise for that mistake. However, global delete does allow users to view deleted pages, and hence I still prefer that you take that route for now. Leaderboard (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Bovlb (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose due to lack of relevant experience. I'd like to see more evidence of capability handling vandalism and other content they would use GR on in wikis where they don't know the language before I would support. I would also like to note (to the other opposers) that being a SWMT member is not a prerequisite or a requirement for Global Rollback. Although most uses for GR are within the scope of SWMT, there are plenty of acceptable use cases that are not connected to the userright. Best regards, and thank you for volunteering. Vermont (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak support Reading their rationale I see that they stated they wanted to skip captcha, revert vandal and edit as autoconfirmed user. Most of small wikis provide autoconfirmed status after 4 days of registeration (i.e acewiki) and while they say they want to skip captcha and revert vandalism but I don't see much activities related to that. Edits they have on most of wikis are big one and have their own requirements for rollback, and Global rollback should not be used to skip that. I'm weak supporting because user is trusted and sysop on two large projects, but still there are requirements for GR which don't meet. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Long term experience and demonstrated valid need. With their experience on two of our largest projects and length of editing tenure, they clearly know what they are doing. And that's sufficient for me. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Support per Ammarpad and 1997kB.--Turkmentalk 19:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment I wanted to give some feedback on how I have experienced the process here. I apologize in advance if this comes across as ungracious, but I feel that it is important for me to express myself candidly and communicate the sense of frustration that I have come to feel. Perhaps we can make some changes that will help future applicants.
Several users have expressed opposition to my request on the basis that I have insufficient cross-wiki experience. I am happy to concede that there may be many editors with far more cross-wiki experience than me, but from my perspective I would not be coming here if I were not actively engaged in cross-wiki work, and experiencing the problems that these permissions are designed to alleviate. Before making this request, I read the policy carefully and satisfied myself that I met the plain-language interpretation of the criteria For consideration, users must be demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities (for example, as active members of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team) and make heavy use of revert on many wikis.. It appears that my level of cross-wiki activity is being measured in some way, and it falls short of some threshold. There doesn't seem to be any agreement on what the basis of measurement is (including reference to a tool that doesn't appear to work), and no-one is prepared to suggest what the threshold might be. I hope you can see that, from my perspective, this makes the process seem arbitrary and non-transparent. If there is some specific level of cross-wiki activity required for these permissions (beyond that suggested in the policy), then future applicants would benefit greatly from being provided with specific guidelines.
Two users have explicitly and unashamedly tied access to these permissions to membership in a specific clique (the SWMT). This team is mentioned in policy, but only as an example. Looking at the archives for this permission, I don't see any intention of there being such a restriction. Notwithstanding, if it is to be a restriction, it should be made clear in the policy, so that future applicants don't waste their time. If it is not a restriction, then !votes citing it as such ought to be disregarded.
A couple of users suggested that I apply for other permissions instead. I recently applied for global sysop and withdrew that request in favour of this one on the basis of similar feedback. My experience here makes me disinclined to follow such advice a second time.
Having gotten that off my chest, I want to express my appreciation for all those who have taken the time to give me feedback and advice. I still believe that we're all here for the benefit of this project, and I accept this feedback as sincere and well-intended. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
No consensus. If you have any issue with captcha, you can use User:Krinkle/Tools/Global SUL and you'll be autoconfirmed on most of wikis in a few days. Yes, we could say this proccess is arbitrary, there's no number of reverts you have to do, you just have to revert many edits on many wikis and if they are fine and users think you are active, they'll support you and you'll be granted the access. You don't need to be a SWMT member. Checking your reverts, I'd recommend to continue doing it for a few weeks, once you have done many of them acrross multiples wikis in diferrent languages, you can re-request it, if you want. There's no way to say if someone is active and experienced enough, it depends the criterion of every user. Matiia (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
That said, the requestee is clearly not a bot, so I've added them to the CAPTCHA-exempt global group. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance and advice. Bovlb (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey there, I have been an administrator at Commons for several years now and am a rollback and/or patroller on a few other projects; I figure it's time to throw my hat in the mix to be considered for GR. Being an admin on Commons, I get to work with a broad range of languages and I have found this experience has been priceless when working with the SWMT. My tool of choice is SWViewer, which I have been lending a hand to improve lately, as I believe in providing specific rationale for reversion of edits as well as issuing local warnings to help prevent further abuse. I think its important to acknowledge that patrolling dozens of languages means that there is potential for error; I try to be the first to notice when I screw up and I correct by going back and fixing it. If I'm not the first to notice, I'll at least be quick to own up to the mistake. I feel I have significant crosswiki experience to warrant this request and as a holder of advanced permissions (sysop, OTRS, etc.), that I can be trusted to use global rollback wisely. Thanks for your consideration. ~riley(talk) 05:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support This editor does good vandal-fighting work on Wikidata. I continually see their username because they have reverted vandalism a few seconds before I get to it. Bovlb (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Trusted. --Geonuch (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Experienced and trusted. --SM7--talk-- 17:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I’m in Wikimedia Movement since 2008. I have a technical right to delete pages in ruwiki, 5.5 years i'm a global rollbacker. My favorite activity is fight against vandalism/spam. Unfortunately, there is not always enough time, but now I am relatively free.
I believe a GS should be just a technical flag. The GS shouldn't be analogous to a local flag. The GS shouldn't block experienced conflicted users, shouldn't try to reconcile users, shouldn't act as a mediator or make decisions in non-obvious discussions. In my opinion, it is a flag only for more effective counteraction to vandalism, realization obvious technical requests from a local community and response to requests for help.
I'm developing software for SWMT to fight vandalism. 2FA is enabled.—Iluvatar (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Of course! I've had nothing but good experiences with Iluvatar, and am confident in his trustworthiness and responsibility. Thank you for volunteering, Vermont (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't really think that's a respectful way to address someone's concerns; and actually shows why I have trust on content projects as a fundamental requirement for either global sysop or renamer. Global rights exist to help content projects, and if someone wishes to use them, they should demonstrate they have gained the trust of at least one community they are active in. When people make comments such as not holding sysop flag on content wikis blahblah is posted above it shows that people on meta/xwiki vandal fighters really have become disconnected from the reason that we exist. The way to solve that disconnect is to insist that people gain the trust of content wikis before considering global permissions. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you think being sysop is the only way of proving that they have gained the trust of a commuity? I never viewed trust that way so I am kinda confused here.--BRP ever 05:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It is the only objective way to prove that unless people who actively edit there are also active here; and can speak to it. That’s not the case here. Trust in reverting vandalism xwiki is pretty meaningless in my view because it’s a small group of people who usually don’t actively edit the projects they focus on. That doesn’t tell us anything about how they interact with others while having access to admin tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) I apologize for any impolite expression while which is not I originally meant and tried to make it better. I personally agree with that a local sysop-wise trust shall exists (though becoming a sysop may not be the unique way to demonstrate such trust per above, but it's the easiest way for anyone who does not speak that language to examine) and that's why I dug into their home wiki RfA pages. There are many factors preventing one from accepting an RfA - perhaps they finds they do not gain the trust from local community early, or that trust do exists but they don't want the flag due to personal reasons - sadly the page is deleted and I cannot figure it out by myself so I post it here looking for answers. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
In a home wiki, it is a social flag. And if you requested sysop, you must use sysop. To remove pages, I have a Closer rights. A RFA page was deleted because request was submitted by another user (Sealle) without my consent.—Iluvatar (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I have been a sysop on English Wikipedia for 14 years, and sysop on Wikidata for 14 months. I am mostly active on Wikidata and on English-language projects, but my Wikidata work often leads me to investigate cross-project issues on smaller projects, including (with appropriate caution) those in languages with which I am unfamiliar.
I anticipate using global sysop in the following ways:
Examine deleted articles to inform decisions on other projects (e.g. Wikidata)
Edit as autoconfirmed to bypass certain edit filters, e.g. for removing large amounts of content
Rollback edits by cross-wiki vandals
Rarely, to protect pages or block users in the case of cross-wiki vandalism
My sysop philosophy is to be cautious in tool use, encouraging of new users, and responsive to criticism. I also have the privilege to be a real-life mentor to a number of wiki-editors, again including some who use languages in which I am not fluent. I use 2FA. I am not a member of SWMT. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
My thanks to those of you who have responded so far. I wanted to address a few points that have been raised.
I acknowledge that most of the benefits listed above would be satisfied by global rollbacker, and it was specifically suggested that I should be applying for that first. I was unaware that experience as a global rollbacker is considered a prerequisite for global sysop but, if that is the consensus, I would be happy to downgrade my request.
The major additional (over global rollbacker) benefit I would hope to exercise as global sysop is the ability to examine deleted revisions. The typical scenario is that articles are created on one or more language Wikipedias, linked from a Wikidata item, and then one or more of those articles are deleted. Sometimes articles are created and deleted multiple times. Although the bar for notability on Wikidata is lower than is typically the case for Wikipedias, the (likely) existence of a Wikipedia article is a major factor when deciding whether to delete items on Wikidata. While the deletion comment gives some guidance, examination of the content gives more. The content of deleted articles is also a factor when deciding whether to merge Wikidata items (instead of deleting one). I use this ability a lot on the English Wikipedia, but am often frustrated in my efforts because I cannot elsewhere. Neither shows up in my logs, of course.
I agree that my cross-wiki experience could be greater, but my activities are driven by the traffic I encounter, which obviously tends to bias to larger projects. Reviewing my editing logs, I concede that, while I have editing experience on a couple of dozen projects, it does appear largely confined to projects that are currently on the opt-out list.
Thanks again for the constructive comments. Bovlb (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Global rollback is not a prerequisite to global sysop; rather, some editors think it would better suit your need. I would oppose both, due to lack of experience in that area of editing which I would have used to judge your ability and need for those rights. I think you misunderstand the scope of global sysop. You would be able to view deleted pages on most projects that have less than ten administrators, which are usually the projects with no formal deletion policy and/or no community to speak of. You would not be able to view deleted content on basically any project you'd want to. Vermont (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Could you give an example of when this right would have been useful on a global sysop wiki, and how you would have used the rights? You have no experience on non-English projects and that causes me to hesitate supporting global sysop, a right with very limited scope that I also don't think would help you very much. Vermont (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Virtually no xwiki experience.Praxidicae (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose No crosswiki experience. --Holder (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Neutral Looking at your reasons for GS, the only one that's useful is the ability to examine deleted articles; everything else can be done using GR. That being said, you do present a convincing reason for why you think you need GS. I recall a special permission (is it still there?) that allows users to view deleted pages; maybe consider that? Leaderboard (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose no crosswiki work --WikiBayer👤💬 06:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Just a little crosswiki experience. Maybe apply for global rollback permissions first. --Streetdeck （Talk） 15:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Request withdrawn Thanks again to all for the feedback. To avoid wasting anyone's time further, I would like to withdraw this request in favour of applying for global rollback as suggested. Bovlb (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I live in Turkey where because of the block I need to use a VPN to edit. Although mostly I would be editing Turkish Wikipedia I would also occasionally like to edit English Wikipedia.
Celestmist (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am a user from Hong Kong. I would like to use the VPN to keep my privacy in a country that is very chaos(the police do not protect and attack Hong Kong's people). Anyway, I am active in a lot of Wikimedia projects. Thus, I want to request for global IP block exemption. Thank you! --12:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Support, he think that very not safe here, and I was also use VPN now. But this word have some positive cure in the why he go to get Ip block exempt. So I think Streetdeck need to say more good reason he want to have this thing. I will Very thank if he add one more reason he need this right.--SickManWP (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I live now in a EU country where Net censorship is growing, despite appearances. My mobile ISP blocks about 10% of sites, as tested by Ooni probe myself, via middleboxes and DNS poisoning, including archive.is and many other similar innocent services.
I use mostly Psiphon or OpenVPN to overcome it but then I am blocked from editing WP by the IP range algorithm as per above.
See my account log for more info that I am not likely to abuse this unblock.
Also think of removing this antiquated tool: the users should be judged by their contributions and not by their IP, especially during the increased AI surveillance and more that we are all enjoying now.
Hello again, You kindly gave me this a couple of weeks ago, but when I try to edit, with a VPN of course, I get a message that I have been blocked from editing: reason "webhostblock".Celestmist (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Celestmist Global IP block exemption permissions only help bypassing IPs which are globally blocked only. If there's a local IP block, GIPBE will not help you bypass that. You'll need to ask for local ipblock-exempt permission on that wiki.—MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
In case it might help you diagnose the problem I logged in to my user on the same device, same VPN and same network here in Turkey (where we are blocked from editing normally as you know) about a minute later and had no problem making the same edit, on the same article on English Wikipedia. So perhaps the problem is due to a difference between our user-ids.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah thanks I checked my user-id and I see I also have ipblock exempt on English Wikipedia. If Celestmist is confused I will explain when we meet in person next week.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Not done Nothing to do here. Ruslik (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm an active user on various Wikimedia projects, mainly Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. Suddenly experiencing an IP block in the middle of an editing session. I access the internet through the provider XS4ALL. Message I see when attempting to edit includes Your current IP address is 126.96.36.199, and the blocked range is 188.8.131.52/19. Thanks, --Spinster (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 is not an IP owned by xs4all, but my some CDN and part of a /24 that gets geolocated to CZ? Something else wrong here. Multichill (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Yep, after restarting my laptop I now have a very different IP address (a ipv6 one). Will check my laptop for malware. Withdrawing this request, apologies for the inconvenience. Spinster (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Occasionally I want to edit from China but it's impossible because of the firewall. Can you please grant me exception? Thanks, --港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
What did you mean by "occasionally"? Are you switching countries or something? Masum Reza☎ 10:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Shenzhen.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
According to your CA, zh wikis are your home wikis. Global IP block exemption won't help you if an IP is locally blocked. You may wish to ask exemption there instead. Masum Reza☎ 10:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I recommend you to apply for an IP block exemption here on zhwiki locally, unless you are sure that you will be editing under a *globally* blocked IP. --Techyan（Talk） 05:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by "CA"? "home wikis"? I tried to edit different wikipedias and each one said my VPN is block globally.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
First, Are you need to edit in another wiki, such as Wikicommons and enwiki? Second, Is your vpn is blocked globally or locally? Thank you!--SCP-2000 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes I want to edit but the page say I am using IP address is block globbally.--港九自由嘻嘻嘻 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
"CA" means CentralAuth which shows stats of accounts connected through SUL. Your CentralAuth page is Special:CentralAuth/港九自由嘻嘻嘻. Where you have more edits/more active, is called your home wiki. Masum Reza☎ 15:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Due to work and some reasons in life, I now have to live in mainland China for a long time. But because of the China's Censorship and Great Firewall, I had to edit it via Proxy. But my activity IP has recently been blocked by metawiki. I am in a lot of (Chinese) wiki projects, so asking for IPBE permissions on a local basis is complicated and cumbersome. So I want to be able to get global IPBE permissions to solve these problems. Thanks. --Rowe Wilson Frederisk Holme (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I am using this bot account to upload data to Wikidata using script. I am having issues running the script on my own machine due to connectivity issues etc. and tried to get this to work on Digital Ocean droplet, just to find out their IP range is blocked. Will be glad to remove the global block for my bot account, in order to use Digital Ocean servers for bot activity, thanks, --Uziel302 (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Why not use Toolforge instead? Masum Reza☎ 06:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
User_talk:Masumrezarock100, I thought it is more for public tools or long term bots, my bot is one-off, I only need to upload the 500k forms I extracted from other resource. I don't care using both, I will try to apply to Toolforge, but would like to be exempted anyway. Uziel302 (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Why does the exempt need to be global? --Krd 18:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I thought the block is global and I needed exempt from it, I can have it specific to my above needs. Uziel302 (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Local IPBE can override global blocks, but global IPBE can not override local blocks.--GZWDer (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
GZWDer, so I need local IPBE. How do I get it? Uziel302 (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
See links on d:Q4048709, or directly contact an administrator if the wiki is not listed.--GZWDer (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
The bot was granted IPBE in Wikidata. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,I am 500000000006城.I live in China.I must use a VPN to view and edit wikipedia.I have IP block exemption in zhwikipedia,but when I am in other wikis,I can't edit the pages.So I need global IP block exemption to edit the pages.
I'm a student studying in China. To view and edit wikipedia, I must use a VPN or Proxy because of the China's Censorship and Great Firewall. But most of the time, i can't edit in any wikipedia due to IP block. for this reason, despite of being lots of mistakes and short of knowledge in my home wiki, I can't update. this is really shocking for me as a regular user. even i can't do it in English wiki for a long time. So, I need global IP block exemption to edit smoothly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byএম আবু সাঈদ (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. @এম আবু সাঈদ: Please let me know when you're back in your own country, and doesn't need the exempt anymore. Then I can remove it. Trijnsteltalk 15:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I only connect to the internet through a VPN due to freedom of speech limitations in my country. For instance, see this recent news article from MSN Brazil (content from Deutsch Welle Brazil) about the current far-right government trying to censor a Wikipedia article and seeking legal prosecution of an editor:
I can supply other examples if needed. The IP I am editing from is my personal VPN, not an open proxy - I am the sole person with access to this IP. I received an error message regarding an IP block when I tried to create an account at the Brazilian Wikipedia directing me to contact user Jon Kolbert who directed me to make a request for an IP Block exemption here. May I use Wikipedia with this VPN? I do not need an exemption for any other IP, thanks --Nurseways (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
You said that "you are editing" but the only your edit is to this page. Please, clarify. Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I come from china, and I want to edit the simplewiki, zhwiki, commonswiki and wikidatawiki. But now my ip was global blocked because I use open proxy to edit. So I need this flag. Thank you very much. 轻语者 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello.I'am a user from China Mainland,because the Chinese blockade of Wikipedia,I must be able to access and edit Wikipedia via VPN.I've already got the Zh(CN) wikipedia IP block exempt permission.But sometime,I must edit commons,wikidata and more website of Wikimedia project.So I need a Global IPBE to eidt wikimedia projects.Thanks.Kiraclyne (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Due to some reason, I need to use proxy to connect to the internet. I need a Global IPBE right to be able to edit Wikimedia projects. I can explain details in email, if needed. Thank you. Ahmadtalk 14:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. Ahmadtalk 13:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
IPv4 and IPv6 ranges those bots are operating from have been blocked (a whole provider block).
pl:User:Miner works still on plwiki because I have lifted the global block locally.
Thank you. (I am the bot operator). « Saper // talk » 10:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
IPv4 and IPv6 ranges those bots are operating from have been blocked (a whole provider block).
pl:User:Miner works still on plwiki because I have lifted the global block locally.
Thank you. (I am the bot operator). « Saper // talk » 10:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I come from china, and I want to edit the zhwiki, enwiki, jawiki and wikidatawiki. But now all of my available ip were global blocked because I use private colocation proxy to edit. So I need this flag. Thank you very much. --Lindasc (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am a user from Mainland China. Editing Wikipedia is difficult to me when proxies used is mainly blocked by sysops. A global exempt will help, especially on Commons and Japanese Wikipedia. Thank you. --Dongshitang (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Commons doesn't locally block that many open proxy IP as English Wikipedia. It is likely you'd able to edit Commons via proxy if you have GIBE. That said, English Wikipedia blocks many of them locally so you'll need to have the local flag there. I am not so sure about Japanese Wikipedia though. Masum Reza☎ 11:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm a user from China(mainland), where Wikipedia is technically prohibited. I cannont visit the sites without the help of proxy tools. However, all of the tools I can find is blocked from editting Wikipedia. Gained the IPBE of zhwp though, I'm looking forward to a global IPBE to edit any Wikipedia project, especially enwiki and jawiki. Thanks.--LimSoo-jung (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am a global rollbacker. I noticed that zh:WP:UC requests usually take a week to complete, and I want to help with them to better meet their needs because my native language is Chinese and I am familiar with local, and global user name guidelines. I also want to assist in renaming queues for other wiki. Regards. --Catherine Laurencediscussion 02:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose A few issues: one, being a global rollbacker doesn't really mean anything in regards to global renaming. Global renaming, despite the name, is a fundamentally local process that usually does not involve cross-wiki work in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. On the next point: there is no such thing as a global username policy, and I think anyone who thinks there is does not understand enough about how renames work to be trusted with the permission. There are many local policies on usernames because many different local cultures have different values. The over emphasis on global actions is very concerning. Would you decline to rename a user on de.wiki who has a corporate username because you think that's globally prohibited? What about rename someone on ar.wiki to be the name of the town their from, because that seems like a good faith request that isn't globally prohibited?
Finally, we need more Chinese renamers, but I see nothing to demonstrate that the local community has placed trust in you beyond simple vandal fighting. I would really like to see more zh.wiki sysops apply, but I do not want to see someone who as of late has mainly focused on xwiki work, and thinks that they'll be doing more global work using zh.wiki to get another global hat. Pretty strong oppose on this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Catherine is trusted and helpful, keep it up. --Streetdeck （Talk） 12:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I Support Catherine Laurence to run for the global permissioner.He was very helpful for the world revert,so I think that he is very good to do this job.I don't think so that he is no good for this job.And he was very many thing that do good in the wiki data,whole world reverter and OTRS,then I think is can do very good for this job.If I say something wrong or I don't know the other thing,please comment here.very thank you.--SickManWP (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment Same as TonyBallioni. --Streetdeck （Talk） 12:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Support can probably be trusted with the tools. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Question: In you rationale you mentioned that you want to assist renaming queue for other wikis. Which wikis are those and do you think that you understand their local guidelines for renaming? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@1997kB: Because I am familiar with English, and I have carefully read the English wiki local username policy. So I will assist in dealing with the relevant rename queue. Other languages, because of language barriers, would choose to handle some apparently uncontroversial requests. Also because Cantonese is one of my native languages, the username policy is similar to the Chinese wiki. So if there have a request, I will also assist in processing.--Catherine Laurencediscussion 02:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I can't trust them on request related to enwiki wiki just with just ~350 edits (most because of file renames) and almost no experience at all on English Wikipedia. As Tony explained above renaming is more of local process and need atleast some experience before jumping straight. Additionally I only see them actively helping on zhwiki venue since 13 October. IMO a bit more experience is required on venue's where they want to handle requests. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Even though there are some though opposes from respected members of the global community, I also see supports from current renamers. And there are all in all more supports than opposes, so while I have some reservation I hereby close it as Done. Please be careful though and ask for help when you need it. Good luck. Trijnsteltalk 23:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a global rollbacker and a global sysop. Furthermore, I'm a local sysop on multiple projects. I'am familiar with the global rename policy. I can speak and understand multiple Turkic languages. Thus, I believe that I can help as a global renamer. Also, I can help in reducing the queues in large projects and Meta-Wiki. Thank you!--Turkmentalk 20:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Support - trusted editor - Taketa (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
You're an administrator on five content projects, four of which you don't edit frequently anymore, and a global sysop/global rollbacker. At what point are you spreading yourself too thin? Vermont (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello dear @Vermont:. You gave a reasonable question. Yes, my activity went downwards since September 10. This is related to my education in the university. I will repair my activity on November 4. But please check out my acitivity from June to September of this year. You also witnessed my activity during that time period. I would not apply for this right if I was going to be an inactive user. Thanks!--Turkmentalk 17:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Has enough experience. I think Turkmen will be a good renamer. --Stïnger（会話） 13:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC).
Support I think Turkmen have all the necessary skills for this. Experienced and trusted editor/user. --Mehman97 18:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Support I can't see this becoming an issue, and it would certainly be helpful to have more renamers familiar with Turkic languages. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Support. —Sgd.Hasley 11:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Question: Suppose there was an experienced user who has decided to vanish and is renamed to some random name so will I be able to change my name to the name that they used earlier? Also what if an experienced user retired long ago (suppose 8-10 years) and now I would like to be renamed to that user's name and the user doesn't mind then will I be able to do so? To be honest I myself have no answers to these questions, I am just curious what happens in these situations.--BRP ever 12:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello dear @BRPever:. This is an interesting question. I think, if the user is willing, you can change the username. Also, what kind of a problem can you face when you apply for a username, which has a holder that has been inactive for 8-10 years? I've witnessed this myself. You can check out this link. Thank you!--Turkmentalk 16:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Support thank you for helping. --Sotiale (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Trusted user and having more global renamers familiar with different languages is a good thing. Has my support. --TheSandDoctorTalk 05:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Multilingual renamers are needed. ~riley (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Trusted and helpful user. But IMO we should not rename to old username of experienced users even if they allow it. There's are multiple reasons for that, one is there are signs all over which do not change even after rename and if anyone will click them after rename they will be interacting to a different user. Another is a security issue as most experienced users have js css pages and there's a possibility that someone use those js in their own js and this could lead to a serious problem as after rename user can edit those js pages which are loaded in others. Sorry for lengthy explanation. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Trusted. -- Regards, ZI Jony(Talk) 08:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Can be trusted, valid use case --DannyS712 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Support, please consult other renamers if there are any confusions. Good luck :) --BRP ever 11:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm the tech lead for the Wikipedia Android app, and would like 2FA enabled for my personal account, to be able to test 2FA logins as realistically as possible. (I have read the documentation and understand the risks/implications.) --Dmitry Brant (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to increase the security of my account. It would also hopefully prevent my account from being taken over to damage any WikiProjects I participate in. I have read the help page. —Gestrid (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gestrid: Done. Please let us know if you have any questions. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to enable 2FA for testing on this account. I work at the Wikimedia Foundation in QA and my name is Anthony Borba. I have read Help:Two-factor_authentication, thanks, --Testerface3 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I have read Help:Two-factor_authentication and would like 2FA enabled because a. I use it everywhere I can and b. so 1Password Watchtower will quit bugging me about doing so, thanks, --Jrork (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to be able to enable 2FA for this account as I'm already using 2FA everywhere else where it's possible. I have read Help:Two-factor_authentication, thanks, --Nomisn98 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Would like to enable 2fa now that I have a few advanced permissions on en.wikipedia. I have read the 2fa guide and am generally familiar with 2fa from use in other places. Thanks! Creffett (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I just started working on a research project regarding correctness of abuse filters and the abuse filter language. My research has already discovered bugs in public filters and the filter language in the past week (1234567891011121314).
Being granted the role of global abuse filter helper would allow me to contribute and progress my research further. In particular:
Fixing a bug or adding a feature could alter the semantics of existing filters in Wikimedia projects, including private filters to which I currently have no access. For that reason, the abusefilter-view-private right would be very helpful for me to make sure that any changes to the language will not break existing filters.
Similarly, with the abusefilter-view-private right, I would be able to point out bugs in the private filters in addition to the public ones.
Both abusefilter-view-private and abusefilter-log-private would allow me to obtain more data points to develop the research tool.
It is my hope that by the end of the project, I will produce an open-source tool to automate the (currently manual) bug finding process, and potentially integrate it back to the abuse filter extension.
Incidentally, I have been a sysop at Thai Wikipedia for 6 years, and contributed to various MediaWiki projects, including the abuse filter extension, several years ago.