Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in June 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Hi! I would like to request a grant of global rollback access to help with my counter vandalism activities globally. M-Mustapha (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Not much edit on the sw and not all edits are about undos. Please, you can fight against vandalism on small wikis to make a request for gr. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose sorry, but I don't see enough crosswiki counter vandalism to warrant global rollbacker --DannyS712 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately, there aren't edits much to combat the cross-wiki vandalism. --Uncitoyentalk 10:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as details mentioned above by editors. Hasan (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: while there is some cross-wiki experience, you need a wider edit matrix, especially on small wikis. I suggest you use SWViewer consistently for a few months and show a good track record of good reverts before reapplying. JavaHurricane 05:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done closing as this request has no chance to pass under any circumstances. @M-Mustapha: Please keep up your patrolling work, and feel free to come later, once you have more experience in cross-wiki patrolling. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm Chinese mainland user, I need to use VPN to edit wikipedia,also not only the IPBE in Chinese Wikipedia, i wanne to edit some page in wikidata,wikimedia.......so i wanna a Global IP block exempt--TNLHK (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
My IP changes often and is usually globally blocked because my school-issued laptop proxies through Securly, which uses AWS servers, which are commonly blocked as open proxies. I have an IP block exemption on the English Wikipedia but am frequently unable to add information to Wikidata and occasionally fix typos on the Spanish Wikipedia and formatting issues on other Wikipedias if I spot them. A global IP block exemption would allow me to do those things. Thank you! Ezlev (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I would like to apply for global IP block exempt in order to ensure my ability to edit wiki pages through internet proxy or other similar tools while physically located in regions like Hong Kong or Mainland China, thanks, C933103 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I live in Mainland China, so I have to use a VPN to edit Wikipedia. I already have an IPBE on the Chinese Wikipedia, but I would also like to edit in other languages, thanks, --CaffeineP (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I use VPNs (for privacy and some websites are blocked in my region, like pinterest) and sometimes TOR. I edit on multiple wikis (mainly Bengali Wikipedia and Wikidata). I have been a contributor for a few months and have never been blocked, thanks, --Md. Haseeb Afeef (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a Japanese CABLE TV internet service provider that has a proper contract. It's not an open proxy, but what port did you look at to determine the block?
12:19, 11 June 2021: علاء (meta.wikimedia.org) globally blocked 22.214.171.124 (expires on 11 December 2021 at 12:19) (Open proxy) , thanks, --126.96.36.199 02:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done Global IP block exemption can only be given to registered accounts. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This user recently lived in China mainland. He wants to contribute Wikimedia Commons, English and German Wikipedia, especially commons. Due to the block from GFW, he have to use VPN to visit Wikimedia website. And he is not able to edit now, so I just help him apply global ipbe.--瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I edit via both my personal and company laptops. 2 days ago, my company decided to install Netskope Agent onto our company laptop and I believe all my internet traffic are routed via a Gateway IP that has a global IP block in place:
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by Martin Urbanec (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is No open proxies: please read the FAQ should you be affected.
Start of block: 19:28, 13 January 2021
Expiry of block: 19:28, 13 January 2024
Your current IP address is 188.8.131.52 and the blocked range is 184.108.40.206/24.
I understand there is a good reason to have a global IP block on this range to avoid people hiding behind a VPN and vandalise. My intention is to contribute to wikipedia and not to vandalise it, hence, I would like to request a global IP block exemption, so I can continue to contribute to en.wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites from my company laptop,as it is not possible to me to disable Netskope Agent, thanks, --Aviator006 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a user from Chinese mainland and I need to use open proxies to edit Wikidata so that I can add interlanguage links after having created new pages on Chinese wiki. I write this to you for an exemption from global IP block because proxies are necessary to connect to Wikipedia in China. I guess you don't have to unblock this IP address if you give my account a global ip-block-exempt would be useful. Acutally, I've just received a temporary local ip-block-exempt on meta wiki from steward to ensure that I'm able to edit this page and send a request to you. So this may be my only chance before local stewards taking my exemption back. I would really appreciate it if you are willing to help me.
--919sth. (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello , I am from China , and I need to use VPN to edit wikipedia , but someone blocked my VPN , thanks, --Ttp67301 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
It does not appear that you edit anywhere. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done. Ttp67301, since you did not respond and it does not seem that you are active I am declining this request, but please feel free to submit another one while describing briefly what do you intend to do once you have permissions (just a couple of examples of edits that you cannot do now). --Base (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello , I am from China , I want to edit English Wikipedia, thank you.Lvxing6321 (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Most global VPN blocks are mirrored on the enwiki, and therefore you would need to get a local exemption from them. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 16:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Already done This was actually done already, and you are a current GIPBE holder. As Amanda says, this doesn't quite work at English Wikipedia, as they block open proxies/VPNs locally as well. Please request local enwiki IP block exemption via email@example.com. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am from the People's Republic of China. I use VPN to edit other Wikis. I have had Chinese Wikipedia's local permission to edit, but I can not edit others now. So I need the global IP permission.(23:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC+8))ZXX4444 (ZXX4444)
15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done You already have the request right. Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no internet access on my laptop except through my wireless phone, which earlier this month I installed legally-questionable firmware which compels me to hide all network traffic that passes through my phone to my computer (i.e. a VPN service, which is similar to open proxy). I have a 3-year flawless record on the English Wikipedia and I'm requesting a block exception in good faith so that I can continue editing English wikipedia and English wiktionary and maybe upload images to commons. I will happily provide more details if requested. Note: This message was sent to me via an external source by User:LaceyUF(talk), and they have asked me to submit this request on behalf of them. I am signing with my own signature. EpicPupper (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have also interacted with this user who seems very motivated to get back to editing. Please approve ASAP. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I used to be a global renamer before in 2014-2018 and quite an active one (Global renamers/Stats). Before that I was a 'crat in ru.wiki (since 2010). I am familiar with the tool and want to help with processing the queue. I had a long wiki-break in 2017-2020, now I am back and want to contribute again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rubin16 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Welcome back! — csc-1 13:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Support: Trusted user, experienced as they had GRN previously, and the plus point is that they are ru-N, we have 4-5 (including stewards) with it already but none of them are active in the queue. Thanks for volunteering and welcome back. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I have read the indicated help page on 2fa. I am security conscious individual and activate multi factor on all possible sites. I would like to have that ability on wiki as well, thanks, --Csloomis (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello and a good day to you all, I am a new pages reviewer, afc review and possess Autopatrol on the English Wikipedia. Predominantly I am also a very active editor at anti spam and undisclosed paid editing. Following multiple UPE nabs I have being experiencing weird activities on my e-mail. I also attribute this to me outing my email address when volunteering for VTRS. I want my account to have extra security so I could continue my work with peace of mind knowing my account is safe. I have read Help:Two-factor authentication. , thanks, --Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I need to improve the security of my users, because I have seen too many stolen accounts on Chinese Wikipedia. I think I have enough two-factor authentication authority, thanks, --LanmeiCN (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to increase the security of my global Wikipedia account I request the 2FA permission. I've carefully read und understood the respective help page (especially the scratch codes section), and do have a broad 2FA experience myself. Currently I'm mostly editing on the German-speaking Wikipedia (as an editor (German: "Sichter")) but also on Wikidata and sometimes on the English and French Wikipedia. Thanks! --TimDemisch (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I would like to ask for global editinterface permissions because of couple reasons.
At first, nowadays, there is a transition to Libera.Chat happening and there are various protected places around where the relevant links and information should be updated once it is actual.
Second, I would like to improve documentation of scripts, styles and gadgets around preferably in unified form so it would be easier for further usage and maintenance. Hand in hand with that, I'd check them for obsolete/legacy/deprecated/duplicated or otherwise unsuitable constructions and/or tweak/optimize them if applicable and possible (allowed).
Third, time to time I experience outdated or otherwise inaccurate messages which desereve to be fixed.
I used to have global editinterface permissions in past for a year and then they expired. I have 2FA enabled. I am bureaucrat, admin and interface-admin on couple projects.
Oppose for three reasons: 1) I doubt that there are enough protected pages that need to be edited regarding the Libera conversion that would justify granting this right. 2) A lot of rights already and significant inactivity, including losing adminship on Meta in late 2019 for inactivity 3) a record of confrontational interactions with other editors (as mentioned on the past GEI requests  and a desysop on cs.wikiversity ) and making serious accusations against other editors without evidence on this wiki ). It is also unclear whether he would use GEI rights on the wikis where his admin rights were removed due to controversy. --Rschen7754 00:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I won't dignify the political rhetoric below with a response. I will also mention this thread from 2019, where Jan admits that all the admins on cs.wikisource at that time were inactive (which would include Danny B.). I started that thread because there was a significant backlog of speedy deletion requests, and global sysops cannot help out (thanks to a request initiated by Danny himself: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2216042). --Rschen7754 19:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Rschen's oppose is weird because most of the links are years old. But I do have to agree with his first point, can you clarify on that? Leaderboard (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Support hi Rschen7754, many thanks for serving me the "old coffee" (2013, 2014 ...) which doesn't matter for this request in any way. As I know the user since many many years (I was the first admin & bureaucrat on the cs.source after I created it March 2006) I can only say he is a trusted user and he knows technical problems perfectly well. Strong support. -jkb- 08:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
He has been mostly inactive since 2014, so that is the latest that we have to go off of. --Rschen7754 17:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Note that while links noted by Rschen7754 are mostly old, they're in fact the newest expressed community opinion on Danny's (global) rights. That means the links needs to be considered, and can't be just dismissed as "old coffee". I would appreciate a comment from the candidate on Rschen's evidence. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Martin Urbanec, I gladly suggest that nobody transfer (mostly private) problems from one project to another one. That's exactly what you're doing here. Thank you. -jkb- 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@-jkb- With all due respect, previous requester's requests for GIE (one half of Rschen's links) are more than relevant for this GIE request. Cases where the requester was desysoped by the community of the project are also relevant, as that shows how the requester used rights they were previously granted.
Please note GIE is a truly global right, and affects all projects, including the ones that (judging by the desysops) do not wish Danny B. to perform any administrative actions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Support. Danny B. is experienced user known for his pedantry work in the template and script field. But many opposing votes on some projects are because of "ancient coffee" JAn Dudík (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose So, this RfP ends in few days, and requestor still did not comment on any concerns raised above. IMO, that serves as a perfect (and fresh!) proof of lack of communication skills (a concern that was raised in Danny's previous requests for GIE). Communication is one of the skills each GIE needs to have, as local communities need to know what is happening and why, as well as be answered any qustions they have. IMO, communicating one's action properly is maybe even more important than technical knowledge and experience. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
NeutralMoved to Weak Support A lot can change in 6 years, but I want to see evidence of that before supporting, and if Danny B. continues to be uncommunicative with regard to Rschen's diffs, consider this an oppose.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I appreciate Danny's lengthy and detailed response, but I am still have reservations about lack of local wiki support, so I am changing my vote to a weak support. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Danny B.: Pinging Danny because he is currently active on other wikis in case he is not aware of the comments here.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - after reading the concerns voiced above and the lack of reaction from the candidate. --Daniuu (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose due to the lack of a response to the above concerns. — csc-1 17:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose due to above mentioned communication issues. Aktron (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose strong technical knowledge and experience, but weak communication skills. See also Wikidata Rfa. Jklamo (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: I am working on the bulk answer for hours to address the raised concerns which I will post here soon. I would appreciate if I was give the chance to finally post it here before adding further opposing opinions. Thank you in advance. — Danny B. 17:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
So let me write the bulk answer here to prevent repeating the answers under similar opinions:
First of all, I apologize for reaction later than I intended and obviously some expected. I have been unexpectedly busy in recent days, so I did not have the time to react enough properly here sooner. As you can see below, the reaction required quite some time to dive in the deep past to collect the relevant data as well as to write the reaction properly and understandably (English is not my mother tongue and despite I think I can speak quite well, I still need to look up certain terms or phrases in dictionaries to ensure they will get understanded as meant and not lost in translation) (You can count my effort for thorough reactions as a part of my communication skills which were mentioned.), so I hope the delay is now understandable. (For those who would like to point out that I have been active on other wikis in the meantime - yes, as a part of my everyday duty of checking those wikis I also do some maintenance edits (which nobody does, but are necessary) there, which are either not so much time consuming, or I have some of them prepared.)
I am sorry that some users judged the delay as a lack of communication skills when until today there was only single oppose and one question which would assume the reaction from me which I was already working on today for couple hours. (Yes, I perhaps should have posted the note earlier - lesson learned. And also thanks to User:Jackattack1597 for dragging my urgent attention.)
So regarding the things mentioned above (I'll try to keep the order in which they have been mentioned, though I may connect some together for the sake of logic and clarity):
Doubt on enough protected pages - that may apply only to the first item of the list of tasks I've described. However, undoubtfully the second item speaks for itself - all scripts, styles and gadgets are protected (also please see below about this particular task). I admit I perhaps could have written it in less confusing way, maybe without using "at first, second, third" which someone may have considered as a priority of interest while it was rather indicating the time priority (as the IRC move is happening nowadays while the docs and other fixes are longstanding issue).
"Inactivity" - well, I am not sure how (or even whether) the inactivity is defined on Wikimedia projects, however I am pretty sure, that (nearly) everyday patrolling and edits on several wikis is not sign of "inactivity". The lost of adminiship on Meta because of "inactivity" was because I was not editing Meta enough times to fit the treshold, however I had more (even much more in certain cases) admin actions than some other admins who have been confirmed. I have posted the comparison table and thoughts with proposal to change to reflect more the real admin activity when prolonging the rights.
"record of confrontational interactions with other editors" - sure, as a sysop who deleted, protected or blocked, all my such step-on-somebody's-foot interactions have been considered as confrontational by involved users. However, yes, I admit, that time to time back in past I might have slipped even in regular discussion, but I am pretty sure I can responsibly say that I was never the first and it was just a reaction to the escalation from the other side. Well, lessons learned - don't react immediatelly if you feel upset, frustrated or otherwise inconventient or uncomfortable. (This is by the way also one of the reasons I did not answer here immediatelly.) I also (try to) avoid personal aspects in conversations and focus on substantiated arguments to find the consensus based on them since that one will always be the strongest and in fact I expect similar approach from others. I can imagine that someone can consider confrontational the fact that although I respect his/her subjective opinion ("I want to have it this way because I like it this way" - but no objective rationale follows), I do not agree with it as well as I do not count it as relevant when judging the arguments to make the consensus or decision. Anyway, the older I am, the less will/time/nerves/... I am willing to spend on/put in batrachomyomachia, hence I'm trying to avoid any hot discussions unless they are about something deadly serious which affects many other people (users and/or anonymous visitors of Wikimedia projects). Years ago I would most probably discuss here quite passionately and react to every single post, but experiences taught me that the more one tries to defend self, the more opponents (s)he gets because of unnoticedly falling into spiral of heat elevation. So because of preferring this discussion to focus rather on relevant facts such as relevant technical skills and abilities, the good will to help and so on than on personal preferences or antipathies, I also decided to reply a bit later (though not as late as I do which was sadly unexpected). Notice: Honestly, I unfortunatelly still expect some inertial (flywheel) opposes based on the mentioned "old coffee" though. I am sorry I can't avoid them, but I hope their significance would not be weighed too much considering the progression since then.
"Making serious accusations against other editors without evidence" - Two links are about User:Vituzzu. He performed some CU (for the sake of not resurrecting old unpleasant though overcomed past I am not going into details, but to make things clear I just say I was not involved in the case neither like the requester nor like the checked accounts), which at the time seemed to be fishing and despite raised concerns it has not been enough explained and clarified, hence my comments at such time. (I am actually well known to be very strict about privacy and anytime I find out about its breaching, I really care a lot within my abilities to prevent it happen again regardless its originator.) Later on we mutually clarified our opinions and settled the case and as a matter of fact I have eventually supported him next time. Last link is about the poster, so it's quite hard to avoid thoughts about personal bias. Well, I think that I have explained and justified my oppose there enough to not be called "without evidence", especially in the light of the small note about my care of privacy two senteces ago. Paradoxical fact: After I've submmitted that comment there, I have been accused of "revenge !vote", well, rhetorical question: is this his oppose going to be called the same?
"desysop on cs.wikiversity" - I don't want to dig in poos (excues if somebody considers this wording inappropriate, but I wanted to illustrate that it was worse than dirt) again, so without going into further details just two important points to get the context and real background: First: confirming happened after I several times stated that cs.wikiversity should rather be closed because it doesn't match its purposes (it's cluttered with many pages like "I have a headache", "The door can't be closed", "Dreambook", "Shoes/The sole is dirty", "Electric razor/The power cable keeps unplugging", "The bulb blinks" etc.) or at least very cleaned up. Second: The validity of the poll has been achieved by bringing up several one-time users who were real-life students of a real-life class of one of the opponents, so considering the duck test it's quite hard to exclude the possibility of the influence. Also, the voting eligibility was "average of 5 contributions monthly in last 90 days" (which can validly be 15 edits yesterday).
Everybody makes mistakes and who is without sin, cast a first stone. And those who never commit mistakes, never learn anything and never grow. I think I've been around for such a long time to both make mistakes as well as learn lessons from them.
Since I never interacted with most of the people who expressed their opinion so far, I can guess (and forgive me if it is fail assumption) that they are oriented mainly by the first post. So let me please quote some posts from previous requests which were made by users with various rights such as employees, stewards, bureaucrats, admins or other otherwise widely trusted users which have been omitted and deserve to be mentioned to balance it here a bit:
I don't believe he is going to do something harmful with Global editinterface.
There has never been an occasion to complain about abusive behaviour or so; also not, as far as I am aware, about his past use of global editinterface.
As I remember, all problematic edits of Danny B. as sysop were about deleting something, not about editing something protected.
I very doubt that he will misuse the right.
Has done good work in the past and generally has done work for Wikimania wikis that get overlooked.
Technically oriented, skilled and very helpful user, who already helped us many times.
I find it unlikely he's going to abuse the tools, and even if he does, the tools can be removed in two clicks.
Danny B. is helpful at working on technical issues and is a trusted member of the community. I see no reason to prevent him from being able to continue his work in that regard.
One of the very few I know who is willing to do that and at the same has the required knowledge.
He's been a great asset in maintaining gadgets on many wikis and help wikis migrate their scripts whenever changes to the software are made. I believe we could really use someone like him in the editinterface user group.
Danny B has been hugely helpful for maintaining gadgets and site JS in the past. I see no reason why he wouldn't be helpful now as well. The right expires after a year, so I don't think it's a huge risk to grant this. He's had some issues in the past, but overall I think he is still a trusted member of the community.
I think that according to what I already mentioned in my request as well as considering the quotes above, it is quite obvious that there is not so much (if even) chance to any possible damage by mostly routine and by default non-controversive edits. And let me quote once again: "the tools can be removed in two clicks".
Subjective note: To be absolutely honest, I feel quite sad seeing (and it is not only this particular request, I've seen that already several times around) that those who are eager and willing to help with something, fortiori something generaly boring which nobody basically wants to do but would be very practical/useful to have, are being thrown sticks in their way.
Conclusion: I hope I have addressed all concerns and I believe I will have a chance to serve the Wikimedia community in the area I can help it perhaps the most.
My permissions expired (again), but I would still find them useful (still), for example to fix phab:T281488. Previously requested here: . By the way, this is the fifth time I'm requesting this permission. Matma Rex (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Strong support maybe for a longer period this time? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Support Please make it indefinite (or for 100 years if you really want to), don't see the benefit of yielding to useless bureaucracy. Leaderboard (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard You might find it bureaucracy, but it is only following community-estabilished policies. The GIE policy clearly states GIE is supposed to be temporary permission (for "any period up to a year"). If you want to change that, I suggest you to start a RfC. Thanks. Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: As I read GIE, it says "by default"; does it not mean that stewards have the discretion to give indefinite rights if needed? Additionally, note "A longer appointment may be requested by long-term interface editors after several successful renewals". Leaderboard (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Support Definitely. --Minoraxtalk 10:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Support For a longer period of time this time.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Strong support Sure, I don't see a reason why not. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Support, and would also recommend 2+ years. --Krinkle (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Support as no issues, and GIE edits appear to be constructive - however the edits do seem to be quite infrequent and the renewal process (that we are in right now) isn't really onerous, so don't see a reason to exceed the standard term length. — xaosfluxTalk 14:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Since I use a proxy and use IP ban exemption for editing, Captcha verification codes often appear, but I need more work efficiency. Please grant me it, thanks, --LanmeiCN (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Captcha exempt is reserved only for limited number of cases, as normally it is never needed. All accounts that are "old enough" are granted (local) captcha exempt permission, where definition of "old enough" waries by wiki (at most wikis, it's older than 4 days; some wikis also require minimum number of edits; see Meta:Autoconfirmed users). It doesn't look like you're crosswiki active enough to justify granting this right at all wikis. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I have to Oppose this as well unfortunately; normally see this given only for unusual cases. There's an extension around that will allow you to create accounts at all wikis, with most of them being autoconfirmed after 4 days. Leaderboard (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Your request does not join the accepted rationales for granting this right. Your modifications only affect 2 projects and do not prove the usefulness of this status. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose due to a lack of crosswiki activity warranting this. — csc-1 02:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)