Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
In the past one month, GRP, a WMF banned user has been continually harassing, attacking and vandalising my talk pages, cross wiki but especially on en.wikipedia and en.wikivoyage and occasionally on en.wikinews. While there are a lot of admins on Wikivoyage who revert vandalism on my talk page (I have patroller/rollback rights there), it's not the same on other projects like the english wikipedia. And while this hasn't happened on the Nauruan wikipedia yet, due to the lack of admins there, if he starts harassing me, the project might have to close for the sake of "harassment" which leaves a bad reputation on the WMF.
So today, I'm kindly making this request to revert GRP's harassment attacks. I promise I won't misuse these tools and I won't revert non-GRP edits, unless it's pure vandalism.
Also, if I'm meant to have 2FA on, is there a way where it can be sent via email? I don't have my phone on me when editing so it's the reason why I don't have 2FA on yet.
Oppose unfortunately. For your use case TwinkleGlobal would do fine (if not, please explain). Some more cross-wiki experience would be needed for a role like these. Also, no project will close for "harassment" - considering that the Naurian Wikipedia has only one admin, it would be reasonable to ask for adminship rights on that wiki instead. (to answer your 2FA question, this role does not need 2FA) Leaderboard (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Global Rollback is for crosswiki work and not for few Rollbacks in other projects. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫👤💬 08:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose No enough cross-wiki experience for global rollbacker and per WikiBayer. --Uncitoyentalk 10:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose you only have rollback on wikivoyage currently, and I don't think you have much crosswiki anti-vandalism work. Apply for rollback in the projects you are an active anti-vandal in. Also, no, 2FA cannot be by email, only by an authenticator app, although you can use a desktop 2FA service. Regards,--Ferien (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose TwinkleGlobal should be sufficient for your use case, alongside a lack of sufficient cross-wiki anti-vandalism experience. — csc-1 15:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: not quite yet. I'm also dealing with the abuse of Ljupco and his imitators, and while I understand how pesky the abuse is, I think you still need to get some xwiki reverting experience before going for GR. For now, I think TwinkleGlobal will do for reverting the LTAs. Try again in a few months' time at least, once you have experience with using SWViewer and the abuse log. JavaHurricane 16:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done Unfortunately, request has no chance to pass. Closing it early per current policy. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
About two months ago I applied for permission, and was told to wait two months and apply again, when I gain more experience monitoring small wiki sites. Since then I have toured quite a bit, and it was possible to see me a lot in SWMT (I toured a lot in the old username, which can not be seen in the log there).
I want the permission so that I can be more comfortable reproducing, and also so that the local monitors on all wikis do not have to mark my edits as checked every time I restore an edit. Neriah (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Weak support For most wikis, you did last cross-wiki work on 22-23-24-25-26 March, 2-15-30 April and 16 May per GUC statistics. I have looked at some of your undos, these are quite right. Half of your undos are already on enwiki and Hebrew wikis (isn't bad), because you have local rights and trusted user on Hebres wikis. However, at total you only worked for approximatly 1 week on other wikis and made a request again after 2 months. This is the only reason why I can't you give full support. --Uncitoyentalk 09:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Uncitoyen, I wrote that part Larger of my restorations are not visible, because I changed the username. Neriah (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it has nothnig with the old username. Your username has been changed, we could see your old edits in 2020 on GUC. --Uncitoyentalk 11:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Weak oppose Hate to say this but I don't think you have relevant experience yet. Most of your edits are at big wikis which is very different from patrolling small wikis. Also username change move edits from old to new username, so all of your edits are at new name. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Despite the relative lack of experience, I think you've improved from your last application and think you'll use it well. Leaderboard (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Enough cross-wiki experience for me.--Ferien (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Not enough cross-wiki experience for something like global sysop, but I see enough for global rollback.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Support reverts look good, no big concerns. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Support looks good enough for GR. JavaHurricane 08:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Support looks fine. — csc-1 15:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Done Only one weak oppose, request running slightly longer than GR requests usually do => consensus estabilished, rights granted. Congratulations. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to request a global IP block exemption for 3 main reasons. Firstly, in the next month or so, I will be travelling to China. This is a yearly trip, and I require a VPN in order to be able to edit there. Secondly, I often wish to use a VPN in light of federal survailence programs to exercise my right to privacy. Finally, I often travel around the world, sometimes in countries which may block Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation projects, and I'd like to be able to edit there. Thanks, --EpicPupper (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@EpicPupper I see that you're mostly active on the English Wikipedia. The global IP block exemption does not allow you to edit from VPN on English Wikipedia – could you please request a local exemption on English Wikipedia? If you get it, we'd probably grant the global one as well, to let you edit at (most) projects. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I've started using a VPN for privacy reasons, and while I'm able to edit my home wiki (en.wiki) with it because I'm an admin there, I keep running into trouble on Commons and Wikidata. It would be nice to not have to keep turning it off, since that somewhat defeats the purpose... Thanks in advance, GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Done Note GIPBE does not affect local blocks (only global ones), so you might need to request local exemptions on some of the wikis. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello stewards, I spend a lot of my time using a VPN, however the IP range my VPN connected to is globally blocked. I am a trusted user at Chinese Wikipedia and Wikiversity, with IPBE, rollback on zhwiki and temp sysop on zhwikiversity. I would like to request for a GIPBE for more convenient access to all Wikimedia projects while connected to VPN. Thanks a lot, --LuciferianThomas • Talk 06:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Done@LuciferianThomas: Note GIPBE does not make you immune from local blocks. You might still need to request local IPBE flags, for example on English Wikipedia. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This is an account of User:SodhakSH (I already have this right there, but because of an incident earlier, I want to be very safe and I don't use that a/c on public connections/devices) which I use for editing from public connections (not very frequently just sometimes). For safety, I use VPN/TOR while doing so but then I can't edit Wiktionary. If this could be granted, it would really be helpful. Thanks and regards, शब्दशोधक (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This is not what I would expect a person who were revoked rights for sockpuppetry block to do to regain trust.
Feel free to request the rights again, this time clearly linking to the history of your account(s). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: I can elaborate on the sock puppetry block. I hadn't done it. It happened due to my carelessness. I had left my devices and account unlocked and then a friend of mine did the vandalism. I wasn't even there at the time. It has now been 7 months since that (the block was given on 23rd November) and I've made sure nothing happened like that again. You can see my [wikt:Special:Contributions/SodhakSH|Wiktionary contributions]] for my trustworthiness. And I requested global rename not for my history/block/gipbe, it was merely for changing it to Latin script making it easier to login. Here's the block link. Thanks. शब्दशोधक (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@शब्दशोधक In that case, why was there no link to the previous removal when you re-requested GIPBE, to allow the granting steward process the request in-context? And, why did you create an account with non-latin script to use "to edit from public connections"? I would expect typing non-latin username on a public computer to be more difficult than typing it on your own computer (but maybe I'm wrong). Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Linking , @Martin Urbanec: There was no link to the previous removal because you had already linked that. It's easy to enter "शब्दशोधक" from any device since I just go check the redirects to any of my subpage and copy the username and paste it. Anyways, it was created mainly because some users were still pinging me there and I couldn't see (and respond) to them. I just thought of also using it for public connections/devices quite recently to maintain the safety of the main a/c and put it to some use. I would also explain 3 more actions here: A) on 22nd August, 2020, I was blocked for a week for removing things I was unsure of directly instead of rfv: like I blanked अगार as I was not sure it was a valid spelling of Sanskrit आगार. I was a newbie back then and unfamiliar with most things. I didn't even know how to reply to my own talk page. B) on 9th January, 2021, I was given the extended mover right. Then I went to wikt:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to help delete some pages. I had no idea the deleting these pages by moving would be considered as "abusing" the right. Hence the right was removed. I then had an e-mail correspondence with an local en.wikt admin about that how I should be careful with mistakes and such topics. Ever since then, I have been extra careful not to repeat anything. I had the gipbe for almost 1 and a half months until you revoked that: note that nothing wrong/error/abuse happened and I made as many contributions as I normally did in this time. Again, see my Wiktionary contributions and the pages I have created there (in mainspace). Thanks. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I was refering to your previous GIPBE request, Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2021-03#Global_IP_block_exempt_for_SodhakSH, not this one. There's no comment authored by me, and no link to the previous revocation either. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to grant GIPBE at this point, especially considering it's a GIPBE granted in order to be able to use VPN (ie. an exemption from the NOP policy). The explanation provided looks like guided by en:WP:BRO.
Revocation of GIPBE as well as declining this request was discussed with two other stewards (including AmandaNP as the granting steward), which means three stewards support closing this as Not done. Updating status again (@Leaderboard: fyi for ). Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am an autoconfirmed user both on Chinese and English Wikipedia. But I came to China this year so I can only use the proxy for editing. I need a global IP exempt to continue my work. (I already have a IPBE in Chinese wiki, but I need a global exempt so that I can access to all wikimedia project) Thanks --Hubble-3 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hubble-3, Done, but please be aware that you might still need local IPBE if you encounter a local IP block. --Base (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I had a global IP block exemption up until last month, when it expired after a year. If possible, I would like to restore it for at least another year. My reason remains the same as last time: I travel frequently and often edit using a VPN I have sitting on one of the larger cloud services. Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done You still have a global IP block exception. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The IP address 126.96.36.199 (block ID #337020) was blocked due to "no open proxies". If I am indeed editing through an open proxy, it might have been due to the default settings of my browser or ISP. However, my computer's "use a proxy server" setting is set at "off". I assure the Wikipedia community that I am not a malicious user. The history of my contributions will prove it. thanks, --Jollibinay (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I propose my name to help in the process of renaming user accounts in the Spanish-speaking community. During the course of the last few months, some users who collaborated with this process have withdrawn and, in the specific case of es-Wikipedia, we have two active renaming agents for now and I would like to help out. I am currently an administrator of es-Wiki and previously I was an administrator of es-Wikinews. My availability to help in this task is almost total; I have read and understood the global policy on the matter and therefore I request your support. Thank you. (En español): Hola a todos. Propongo mi nombre para ayudar en el proceso de renombrado de cuentas de usuario de la comunidad hispanoparlante. Durante el transcurso de los últimos meses algunos usuarios que colaboraban con ese proceso se han retirado y, en el caso específico de Wikipedia en español, tenemos por ahora a dos renombradores activos y quisiera echar una mano. Soy actualmente administrador de la Wikipedia en español y previamente lo fui de Wikinoticias en español. Mi disponibilidad para ayudar en esta tarea es casi total; he leído y comprendido la política global sobre la materia y por ende solicito su apoyo. Muchas gracias. --LuchoCR (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Support trusted, sysop and crat on eswiki. JavaHurricane 09:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Everyone is a 'crat on eswiki, they don't make any difference between "administrator" and "bureaucrat" Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Trusted, competent. --Blablubbs|talk 17:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Looks good. — csc-1 17:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Support I know his work at esWiki, he is one of the recently appointed administrator most committed to the project. And it will be even more so by being a global rename. Excuse my English level. --Luis1944MX (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Well-suited for this task. -sasha- (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Greetz, everyone. Hoping this finds you well! I'm Serial (). I'd appreciate the opportunity to help relieve my colleagues’ burden; if they have one. Even though this is called a global user right, I intend to use it locally (of course, it can only ever be used locally!). My lack of experience compels me not to rename in other projects—not for a good time, anyway. As for experience, well; in some cases, clerking relevant pages leads to experience, but in some, clerking does more harm than good. CHUS is one of those areas I suspect, if only because of the duplication and work for others it would cause. I also recognise a number of familiar names in the GR role call, and—in the early days at least—I think I can promise to be pestering a number of them frequently for useful advice, should I receive the right!It would, I feel, come in handy in order to not just assist colleagues but to help new editors navigate our oft-labyrinthine policies. I proactively patrol user pages for backdoor promotion (e.g.). I’ve become increasingly aware that, to some extent, it is our—en-wp’s—own fault for a proportion of the spammy usernames we encounter. See, when we advise people to create an account, we emphasise (rightly) their privacy concerns, but don’t mention what names we forbid. In the case of vandalistic names, that’s no problem as they clearly know a trolling username when they create one, but ‘corporate’ organisational usernames are more problematic. For potential editors used to FB, IG etc., it probably seems obvious to use their group/product name rather than their own, as how they would have different pages on Facebook for themselves and their advert. But we don’t tell them not to do that, and when these editors are willing to rename, it would be useful to be able to action that as soon as possible, especially as unblocks often wait upon a change of username. (To clarify, I don’t think we’re too harsh on spam or spammers, just that we could probably save ourselves a lot of blocks—avoiding concomitant WP:BITE—if we advised against it at the point of sale, as it were.).For languages, mon français n'est pas mal, agus tá beagán Gaeilge agam.Thanks for reading! ——SerialNumber54129 19:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: You're not an admin though. How do you envision making use of global renamer, considering that your intention is to help users that are blocked and half the admins come here (and get the right you're looking for) with the same unblock assistance reason that you're giving? Leaderboard (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Well, if there was an 'admin-only' criterion for this tool, you have my assurances that I would not have applied; I'm not sure my competence would not have been questioned :) but as I say, it would be nice to do something for those new editors, who, blocked for a username concern, then make multiple unblock requests to no avail. The experience could so easily be sufficiently off-putting for them that they never edit again. Or at least are put off editing as much as they might otherwise have done. This would be a shame for the project—indeed, the movement more broadly—as who knows what they might have brought to it.Do you know what I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 16:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
No unfortunately. The problem I'm seeing here is that you're trying to help in something that you really can't - after all, as a user that was blocked for a username violation, you as a GR can do nothing in practice unless the user asks for an unblock and the blocking admin cannot do it themselves. After all, that's the reason you see every second admin come here and ask for global renamer (and get it). Unless I'm missing something, that is.
Tentative Oppose as a result; this is a case where I would ask you to become an en.wikipedia admin. Your idea is good, but not the proposed solution. Anyone with editinterface can add a blurb on the banned usernames when users sign up, after all. Leaderboard (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose following up on the "become an admin" commentary above, it looks like the last time you attempted in 2019 (in the now deleted w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Serial Number 54129 request) your primary goal was to further an administrative controversy. As your goal is to primarily only use this for your homewiki, in cases where admins may be needed - that seems at odds right now. Suggest you come back if you become a homewiki sysop and want to engage in this area. — xaosfluxTalk 18:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Weak oppose as you're requesting the right in order to carry out an administrative duty without being an administrator. — csc-1 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Well-experienced user that definitely knows what they're doing and capable of using the tool. It's unfortunate this right is apparently being arbitrarily restricted to admins which is completely not required in the the official policy of the access. If it's, we should just be forthright and mention it there. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ammarpad: I'm not opposing because they're not an admin, I'm opposing because they're requesting access in order to deal with unblock requests, which only admins can process. If they express otherwise, then I'd change my vote. — csc-1 22:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I can't see much your reports for usernames on UAA in the last 1 year . If non-admin users deal with username reports, I would like to give them a chance, but I don't have any data to give you a chance. --Uncitoyentalk 14:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Althrough global rename tool is not bound to adminship in any way, adminship is the basic way to prove some level of trustworthiness at one's own home wiki. I don't think it's wise to grant GR access to someone who's not an admin anywhere. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Weak oppose --Ferien (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Would like to see OP apply for adminship somewhere first. -FASTILY 22:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have been seeing both CptViraj and Deepfriedokra handle rename requests multiples times a day (via the RC), indicating there is a backlog and the GRQ could use some help. I would like to volunteer and help out. I am a member of OC, an agent of VRT, LR and rollbacker on Commons and hold admin, I-admin, reviewer and accredited reporter bits on enwn. If granted the permissions, I will help reduce the backlog here. acagastya 06:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Support irrespective of the backlog (which I cannot see, and I'm not sure ombuds can either?) as a capable user as someone who sees him all the time on Wikinews, with a note that you could handle some things better than what you do right now. Leaderboard (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, @Leaderboard:. Re the backlog, no, even ombuds can't see, but I was told by CptViraj, there are ~100 requests a day in the queue. acagastya 13:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't counted but had guessed, after counting I found that we don't get that many requests, it's 30-40 requests daily. Sorry for the wrong number. But we get queue backlogged (100+ open requests = backlog) every few days because of inactive/not very active renamers and variety of rename requests from different-different wikis. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Support I have no reason for oppose because a trusted user is on Wikimedia projects who is volunteer user for this work. --Uncitoyentalk 13:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Support: Admin on enwn, an ombud, trusted user wants to help so why not? Little to no renaming clerking experience but as said previously "this is something user can learn on the job". Thanks for volunteering. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Thanks for volunteering. — csc-1 15:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Of course, per my usual criterion of sysop on medium to large size wiki should be given the access, they are an admin on enwikinews (can be debated if it is a medium size wiki but I think it can qualify). OC member is clearly trusted. Why not grant them this access, I am sure they won't abuse it per my interactions with them which they seems to have clue. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, I'd like to test my 2FA application and Yubico OTP generator. Thus I'm requesting for 2FA premissions. I solidly understand how 2FA works and will help report incidents or bugs. Therefore, 2FA will protect my account, keep it much safer. Much appreciated, --Kimo.Yx (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I would like to protect my account using 2FA. I use 2FA quite a bit for work and other personal accounts (mostly using the Microsoft Authenticator iPhone app). Apparently my password was part of a data breach and I'd like to give my accounts an extra layer of protection where ever possible. I have read the Help page and understand the process. Thank you. --Crossalchemist (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I’ve read the Help page article at . I am member of this project for more than 10 years, and a rollbacker user in the International English Wikipedia. Off-wiki harassments against me however are occurring for years mainly due to my participation in politically sensitive topic areas of Wikipedia (such as Balkans and the Middle East topic areas), with harassment peaking in December 2019 when I had received threats against my life. The Staff at the Wikimedia Foundation were unable to identify the senders of these threat emails to me, while lesser forms of off-wiki harassment aren't uncommon. Earlier this year I had to ask from the Admins that they block my secondary Wiki account, AuditoreEzio due to losing the login credentials and the ongoing security concerns stemming from this climate of intimidation. To soothe my security concerns and avoid possible damage to my account and the Project, I would appreciate if can I activate the 2 Factor Authentication to protect my current and only active Wiki account from possible ill-intended third-party access. however I don't have the required permission to access this feature. I would like to request this permission to protect my account using 2FA. Thanks. --SilentResident (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I’ve read the Help page article. I am a patroller and rollbacker user in the Spanish Wikipedia. This week I have been harassed by a Long-Term abuse user who has a global block imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation. This user tried repeatedly to access my Wikipedia account, generating multiple alerts. The administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia and the Trust and Safety team recommended that I activate the 2 Factor Auth to protect my Wikimedia account from third-party access, but I can't do it since I don't have the permission. I would like to request this global-permission to protect the integrity of my account, thanks, --Benjaminpvera (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I've read the Help page article and would like to activate the ability to use 2FA, to ensure my wikipedia account is kept to best security practices. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2021
Recently my account was hacked and my email was removed but thankfully I got it back from the Wikimedia T/S team. I want 2FA in my account so it'll be prevented from hack/account compromise in the near future. thanks, --Owlf (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
As I noted when I requested CentralNotice admin rights last year, I am looking to more clearly delineate my volunteer role in CentralNotice and other niche areas from my staff role. Now that my move to being a software engineer is permanent I'd like to continue to support the community as a volunteer. Requesting this user right is to cover a specific set of tasks that are related to my support to CentralNotice and other interface tweaks I've fulfilled over the years.
These tasks are specifically:
temporary full protection of high usage images on commons that are utilised in CentralNotice banners.
temporary semi protection of high traffic landing pages across wikis, used in CentralNotice campaigns.
managing interface messages on Meta relating to CentralNotice banners.
support in editting of MediaWiki css pages across multiple wikis for special events such as anniversaries and blackouts.
It is this combination that makes global interface editor the most suitable user right to request. Usage for these tasks is infrequent but consistent. I've given up the CN rights on my staff account and would like to do the same with the global int admin should the community like me to continue to fulfil these sorts of tasks. Many thanks. --Seddon (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Valid use case. — csc-1 01:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Question: @Seddon: as you mentioned you want to use this to apply protections on commonswiki, a project that has hundreds of local admins, have you made an inquiry to them if they welcome this sort of action from external volunteers? A quick search didn't turn up a commons page on any sort of local "global rights policy", but I didn't spend a lot of time looking for one there either. (Noting that the commonswiki community may consider actions from WMF staffers as you previously performed different from that of volunteers) — xaosfluxTalk 01:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Not prior to this request and you are right it seems commons doesn't have a global rights policy. The point you allude to though, in relation to use of global rights on local wiki's with a healthy admin cadre, is a fair one. How would you feel if, should this request be successful, I commit to having that discussion with the commons community about the protection of high visibility files or pages used in relation with community campaigns? These rights would be under review in 12 months time anyway so that would give time for a discussion, any changes to procedures or the creation of new ones (such as notifying local wiki's of actions), and also the possibility to changes in how image resources for CentralNotice are handled more generally. Seddon (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Notably, I don't have any reason to think you would use this in bad faith or wheel war with a local community, but it does also seem to be creating a separate procedure for CN campaigns that you would make vs those made by other CNAdmins who are not commonswiki admins/staff/GIE's (who don't seem to be running in to this issue?). The commons community may very well not care, but I'm not that active over there to know so wanted to raise the discussion point. Perhaps others here have some additional insight. — xaosfluxTalk 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: not all admins follow the guidance. For several CN admin campaigns I've actually uploaded the images over to a fishbowl wiki (donate.wiki 123456) but this is only accessible to the fundraising team. Naturally given my change in role, access to this wiki will eventually no longer be available either. Seddon (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Support as Seddon is an active and knowledgeable CNAdmin that we are in short supply of; as mentioned above would like to see this workflow revisited as this shows it is at best inconsistent amongst the various volunteers who could help in the CNAdmin arena. @Seddon: perhaps a new thread over at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard just to get any feedback if they will have problems with what seems to me to be a common sense practice, would be good to at least get a lack-of-objection record. I'm not sure what the best way to improve the system is, the entire CN workflow is sort of fragile and esoteric already, maybe you will have good improvement ideas :) — xaosfluxTalk 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the kind of access that is not actively used most of the time, but can be very helpful when it is needed. I had received this on a temporary basis and it expired on Apr 26. I would like to request to renew my temporary access. Huji (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Looks good — csc-1 22:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Support With a note that there is no need to be so bureaucratic; just make it permanent... Leaderboard (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The policy says it should always be temporary. Maybe "overly bureaucratic", but that's what the policy mandates right now. Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Make it for 10 years then I guess? Like I don't like the unnecessary bureaucracy in keeping some rights temporary like this. Leaderboard (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
It does seem pretty unnecessary, especially considering GS isn't assigned temporarily. — csc-1 01:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am Hasley. I am requesting AFH rights in order to be able to view private GAF log entries—which I patrol regularly—without needing to come to Meta from wikis where I do not have (global) sysop access. I also have been working on developing filters against a couple of LTAs that have caused severe disruption on eswiki (namely, GRP and Joaquinito01). Having access to the AF code of other projects, particularly the specific filters, would help greatly. Sgd. —Hasley 23:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Trusted editor valid need. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Support, I don't see any problems, trusted user. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Support as someone who finds AFH very helpful for this purpose. Leaderboard (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Support. I hope the relative clause in "filters against a couple of LTAs that have caused severe disruption on eswiki" is not referring to the filters being disruptive ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm running into cases where multiple wikis have requested that I add/modify/comment on private filters, which I cannot do as an AFH (where I can only see them). Explicit examples include (I've also been asked to help, or have helped, on some other wikis):
I was wondering, as a result, whether I could get AFM. For reference, I do indeed satisfy the requirements, as someone who has modified filters for Wikibooks and MediaWiki. Note that I expect to use this permission only sparingly in general (because this right is supposed to be used only on the request of the community), but when needed I expect it to be very useful. Thanks in advance.
P.S: do let me know if I should be applying for something else, I don't think there's an alternative in my case but I could be wrong. --Leaderboard (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Leaderboard is working with abuse filter on home wikis according to the logs. He/she contact with users on other wikis about abusefilter as I see sometimes. Already is a global abuse filter helper, so I think Leaderboard might help on this issue. --Uncitoyentalk 09:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Given their manner of interacting with other users I would rather not give them a global right where communication skills are required. --Rschen7754 18:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Besides  and , User:Leaderboard/GS attempts shows a bull-in-the-china-shop approach to working with medium-sized wikis. Also see , , . Sorry, but quite frankly this would be a PR nightmare for Meta (not that it isn't already). --Rschen7754 18:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Sigh. For the interaction aspect, I have actually made an explicit note on my userpage with respect to communication. As a non-native speaker I am well aware that I am not the best in translating my thoughts to words, and I did apologise for that one mistake that was pointed out then (your second link). If there are further mistakes I've made, please let me know - I try my best in that aspect.
And can I know what mistake I've made with my GS attempts page? For every single wiki in that list, I have done due process - explaining the benefits of having global sysops around, answering the concerns or questions of anyone at that wiki, and being very clear that it is the community's decision and not mine. Personally I think my attempt is a good thing instead, for different reasons. If you think I should not be doing I would appreciate if you could let me know why on my talk page (linking from here if necessary) so that I can reconsider if needed. Leaderboard (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The ability to effectively communicate across different cultures and languages is a requirement for most global roles. I'll admit that I am a native English speaker - but most stewards are not and they somehow are able to communicate with other communities in an effective manner. It is certainly within my rights under "due process" to go to en.wikipedia and ask if they want to be part of the global sysop group. Whether that is a wise thing to ask is another. Because medium-sized communities, especially those with CUs, can see this as an attempted power grab, you need to be very careful if you make such a request, and point to a specific problem that needs solving. On the contrary, many of your comments especially on en.wikisource were borderline combative and badgering, bludgeoning the discussion. --Rschen7754 00:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
tl;dr: you can't argue a wiki into the global sysop group. --Rschen7754 00:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what more I can do with respect to your communication concern. I know I made a mistake, I have freely apologised for it and even disclosed my weakness on my user page. The AUC (area under the curve) of my precision-recall graph in communication is lower than yours at the very least, and the reason for that has not only to do with my being non-native EN, but other historical factors I am unable to disclose at this time (except that the concerns you raised are true outside of wikiland, and hence I hope you understand the difficulty I face).
As for your second point, en.wikipedia is one of the few communities that has a large enough admin population to support itself (though I'd still support such a proposal if someone comes up with one). It is a firm belief of mine that most wikis in the opt-out list will benefit from global sysops, and I'm seeing wikis with >= 50 sysops benefit from GS. Notice that for medium-sized wikis, global sysops are unlikely to make use of their rights most of the time, however, when they do need it becomes very helpful. I've been trying to be careful while discussing this with wiki communities, and would welcome any feedback to improve on that aspect. "combative and badgering" was not my intention at all - I try to sense when it becomes clear that a community does not want GS, and leave them at that point. But then I do also need to clear some misconceptions about global sysops that people raise - keeping this balance is tricky. Leaderboard (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment It is good that you are assisting wikis with AF interpretation. I would note that you have asked today to exclude a specific IP address from a global filter, and typically I would not think that is something that we would be wanting to do unless truly truly truly necessary. Occasional FPs are okay where there is no harm being done. If users have to modify some of their behaviour on some occasions, I am okay with that in non-content spaces with certain filters.
We're probably at the point with this growing community (c.2014 Stewards => c.2018 Stew + Meta admin => 2020 Stew + Meta admin + AFM) to set out some principles and expectations for those undertaking the global AF role. To now it has been somewhat implicit and come from people familiar or practised in global roles. — billinghurstsDrewth 11:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tks4Fish: I think I did? As noted, if a different permission would satisfy my need (namely to edit filters crosswiki by the request of the community), please do let me know; I'm not aware of one. Leaderboard (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
That's for two wikis. This right is a truly global one. Frankly, I don't think you have the communication skills required to handle such a permission globally, in wikis such as enwiki, for instance, as demonstrated by Rschen. —Thanks for the fish!talk•contribs 18:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tks4Fish: I can show more examples if required (here's a third one, yet another; some are done off-wiki as well) - I just gave two examples and did not mean that I was only working on two wikis.
I don't know why you're referencing enwiki - I don't think Rschen said that I did anything (let alone wrong) on that wiki. Did you mean another wiki? Also I wish to point out that his opposition, to my understanding, was based on one mistake which I've freely apologised for. Leaderboard (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not, the multiple diffs I provided (plus your replies to comments here) shows a disturbing pattern. --Rschen7754 05:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Support. Has experience with filters, has a good reason for getting it and I can trust the user. --Ferien (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see enough x-wiki experience here, also recent filter work such as in b:en:Special:AbuseFilter/history/66/item/402 where deprecated parameters are being pushed isn't something I'd want to see being used to maintain other projects from a technical level. — xaosfluxTalk 16:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose too many opposes from people I trust. Plus,  doesn't really convince me – it looks to me that the requestor considers AFM to be a free card to edit all filters arbitrarily, while that's not the case. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done With this ending tomorrow, the lack of being anywhere close to the consensus line is why I am going to close it early. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 12:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to nominate LPfi for the 'helper role. They are an admin at English Wikivoyage who writes and follows its abusefilters and its logs. They are having the need to look at our global rules as they impact their wiki and having that local access rather than having to always come and ask about any issue from the global space. Local admin at enVoy since 2018, knows their way around an abusefilter. Also admin at svWP, svWB and has been editing WMF for 12 years. I do not see an issue with knowledge, competence or trust. Also will help with their local management of xwiki LTAs to view other filters that we have in our LTA management. -- — billinghurstsDrewth 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that I do accept the nomination and that I'd be glad to answer any questions. –LPfi (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Support - As fellow en.wikivoyage sysop, I have complete faith in LPfi's ability and trustworthiness.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Support I trust billinghurst's judgement, and if they think that LPfi should have AFH, I don't see any issue granting it. The presented use case makes sense to me. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to be able to read private global filters, mostly in order to remove duplicates/make maintenance on fr-wp abusefilters (where I work with user:Supertoff). I am an abusefilter editor (and also bureaucrat, sysop, OS) on frwiki.
Best regards, — Jules*Talk 17:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Support long time Sysop, OS, Abusefilter on frwiki. And he is one of the most active users on the false positive reports page. No doubt about the use he can do of this status. Supertoff (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)