Steward requests/Global permissions/2010-12

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am sysop on de-wiki and pdc-wiki and member of the pywikibot development team. It may be helpful to have this rollback option to revert edits by malfunction bots or vandalism reported during normal bots function or while inspecting and investigating bot edits. Xqt 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

•   Question: I am a tad confused by the reason for your request. Are you a bot operator who wants global rollback to deal with your bot? Or are you wanting your bot to have global rollback? Tiptoety ^talk 18:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand he is a bot operator, who check cross-wiki bot edits. --Hercule 10:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I ask for that flag for me, not for the bot. I am bot operator and member of the bots developer team. The flag could help me during inspecting and investigating bot edits. My bot reports me potentially vandal edits and also I am dealing with malfunctions of any bot. At the moment we have problems with some versions of python interpreters and I am examining a work-arround. Xqt 14:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

•   Support Seem to be usefull for you. Hercule 10:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - would aid this user with their work. —Ancient Apparition 10:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - Hoo man (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

    Done --dferg ^{☎ talk} 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been monitoring the #cvn-simplewikis IRC channel for quite some time now, reverting vandalism wherever I see it and warning the users responsible. I've been a long term contributor to the English Wikipedia, I've been active at the Simple English Wikipedia for a couple of months now. I feel that since my last request I have gained more experience, I understand permissions such as this aren't just hats to collect and that a certain amount of experience, maturity, good judgment and knowledge of policy is required. I believe that I have what it takes to do my bit to help undo vandalism on the wikis where I am active and those I am not. —Ancient Apparition 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, you only have more than five contributions on one wiki where you do not already have rollback... and thats meta. - Hoo man (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, I don't think you have the necessary crosswiki experience yet. Keep up the good work though. Jafeluv 12:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - you need to think outside the English language-box. Seb az86556 13:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• It's not a tool I can see that you have a need for or would know how to use safely globally. Sorry. fr33kman 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per above -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Not done. No consensus to promote at this time. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 14:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm sysop on nl.wikipedia and editing since 2005 overthere. During RC patrolling on nl.wiki I often check for cross-wiki vandalism. One of the things I do is checking the edits of sockpuppets and "discovering" new ones. As sysop I'm used to work with the rollback function and it would make is so much easier for me for reverting vandalism. I monitor #cvn-sw for a couple of months now and have edits on more than 100 wikis. Therefore I've gained a lot of experience and see very easily what vandalism is and what not. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

•   Support, although not yet so many edits she is available on IRC and so helps out on #cvn-sw. Furthermore, rollback is no big deal. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support & thanks for helping. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 23:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support Damn ,i was going to be teh first supporter Mardetanha ^talk 23:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Of course, a hard worker, enough cross-wiki experience and trusty - Hoo man (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• {{yes}} Dolledre 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• {{yes}}--Vituzzu 23:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  Damn, those green flags are only for steward. :-P —DerHexer (Talk) 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No trouble trusting this user with global rollback, is active and no doubt would use it. Ajraddatz 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Seen this user around, and can't see any problems. Jafeluv 04:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• '  Support' of course. MoiraMoira 06:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - JZ85 11:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes --Dalibor Bosits ^© 11:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Of course, per above -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 12:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - WinContro 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - Does good vandal fighting work Olivier Bommel 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support Does good work :) Apoo 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support Sure. --Erwin 21:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 02:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support by –BruTe ^talk 07:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Sure! -Barras 15:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support Sure --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Has my trust. Avicennasis 21:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for sure - An ambitious girl with a huge hart for Wikimedia and all of its projects. Fontes 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Extremely trustable user. Savh 08:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. JenVan (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Good suggestion. -- Tegel 10:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 16:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Promoted, clear consensus. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 11:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to present myself for Global Rollback. I am an active member of the SWMT, and I am often on IRC in the related channels. I am an admin on both the Scots Wikipedia (verfiy) and the Strategy Wiki (verfiy), and I understand the GR policy. While I sometimes contribute to different language wikis, I understand that GR is granted only for anti-vandalism reasons, and not content issues. Thanks for your consideration. Avicennasis 02:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, why not (enough activity, trusted) - Hoo man (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Don't know the user but I can't find any reasons to be against. Fontes 23:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I see you reverting vandalism across many wikis regularly, and have no reason not to trust you with these rights. Ajraddatz 17:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I see no problem. –BruTe ^talk 17:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Done -- Avi 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Status:    Done

Status:    Done

Status:    Done

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• http://af.wikipedia.org (stewardry)

This project meets global sysop criteria, that's to say :

fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months.

There is a long deletion queue there, so I don't think that adding {{delete}} template to every broken redirect (or every other basic maintenance making the queue higher) is a really good thing. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 22:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• oppose ...apart from the fact that your tagging is outside of the scope of GL. Seb az86556 23:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  Hmmm... Fixing broken redirects appears as basic maintenance to me. I would not say that it's outside of the GS scope... -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 08:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  It is. You are supposed to clean vandalism and nothing else. Seb az86556 08:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  Please allow me to quote policy too : "for the purposes of antivandalism and routine maintenance". Routine maintenance isn't outside of GS scope. Furthermore, I don't see why GS shouldn't be allowed to fix broken redirects if local admins doesn't. And that's the case of afwiki : I wouldn't be the only active sysop of this growing project :/ -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  Redirects, even if broken, are a content-decision. Not in your scope. Seb az86556 11:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  Surely that depends upon the redirect. Broken redirects can also be targets or vandalism. fr33kman 03:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• oppose af:User:RAM sent by 58.107.235.200
•   Comment Um, considering the activity level of the project, shouldn't there be a local consensus discussion first? Or is there something I'm missing here? fr33kman 00:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, there should be; and I left them a message. Seb az86556 01:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • According to the policy, projects meeting the criteria are by default GS projects. If it should require a local consensus, I propose to change what is written on Global sysops. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 08:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      • "Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus." It's opted-out, therefore, there needs to consensus to opt-in. Seb az86556 09:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, I haven't understood it in this way. I agree with you on this point, so I mark this request as not done and will propose locally to opt-in. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Hm. As jy dit in Afrikaans kan doen, en ook enige vrae sal beantwoord, dan goed. Seb az86556 11:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am active as a global rollbacker and use it when needed (crosswiki abuse-type edits). I am active as a sysop at English as well as here. I believe that having global sysop will help me deal with crosswiki abuse/spam that happens when others aren't around. --Bsadowski1 23:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

•   Comment according to this you only have recent edits on seven wikis, from those only two have gobal sysops active, so I'm not a 100% sure that you will use your rights frequent. - Hoo man (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Brian is an excellent admin on multiple projects and he is a fellow checkuser on simplewiki. When Brian is online and working hard for WMF projects I know he has only a single motive in mind; protect this world-altering project. He's a man of the highest calibre of integrity and probity! He's also very resourceful in his approach to what needs doing, calling on those people who are best able to help with or solve a problem; all of whom he has an outstanding relationship with. Where Brian will excel in the arena of global sysop is the crosswiki disruption that occurs. He's got an excellent understanding and knowledge of the current (and historic) vandals and sockers that is remarkable. He also great at latching onto patterns of disruption that help quickly identify vandals. I think the community should give Brian global sysop because he's a remarkably trustworthy individual and because he will use it to help is xwiki sockpuppeteer and vandal catching activities. Hooman has rightly asked about Brian's recent edits and has shown them to be "big" project based. I think this is likely due to a recent increase in his known socker/vandal activities. Brian does have sufficient edits to small projects, in my opinion, that when coupled with his xwiki checkuser activities (CUs often collaborate xwiki) qualifies him for global sysop. Most small wiki vandalism is ad-hoc, but a significant amount is from big wiki vandals. So I support his candidacy and encourage others to also. fr33kman 02:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Of course. I can vouch for Brian's being a thoughtful and responsible user, helping us a lot dealing with crosswiki maintenance. es:Magister Mathematicae 02:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Trustworthy user with sufficient crosswiki experience. Jafeluv 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support of cource. –BruTe ^talk 08:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Certainly competent and cross wiki interests, should be useful. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Trustworthy user. No problems here. -Barras 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• I can only echo the above. Brian is an experienced and trusted user who has dealt with small wikis in the past as well.  fetchcomms☛ 17:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. JenVan (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Does he have an appropriate background to understand how to use the tools? Yes. Does he have cross-wiki experience? Yes. Will he abuse the tools? No. As such, I have no problem supporting. Tiptoety ^talk 18:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Sure. --Erwin 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Maximillion Pegasus 19:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Hoo man (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support --- @lestaty ^discuţie 21:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per Tiptoety. --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely. Grunny (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• '  Support' No doubt that he would be very helpful for the projects. --Jyothis 14:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above, and we need more global sysops to manage small wikis. -- Quentinv57 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Magister Mathematicae. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 15:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - We had some fights and some personal disputes, but Bsadowski1 has proven themselves capable and competent, and that is what really matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - well said fr33kman :) —Ancient Apparition 10:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. My, my, what a lot of support you have. PeterSymonds 10:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Komm, gib mir deine Loschën! Diego Grez ^{return fire} 15:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• yes--Dalibor Bosits ^© 17:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Subteno - No doubt user can be trusted with the tools. Avicennasis 10:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 20:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a sysop since 2006 on nl-wikipedia and am active with vandalism control and cross wiki vandalism for many years. As a global rollbacker I am active also reverting cross wiki linkspam, vandalism and revert edits from long time vandals. I ask for global sysop to be able to also remove vandal pages from cross wiki vandals and also to enable me to fight and check upon cross wiki long time vandals recurring in a better way. MoiraMoira 07:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Question: I'm inclined to support, but could you explain why you made this revert? Jafeluv 07:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • a cross wiki vandal that drives everybody crazy (what is still right becomes a puzzle for all of us btw due to the many sockpuppets and some additions right and others outright wrong!) - the version I checked upon proper spelling and content and was the better one (earlier removals restored and all names no longer wrongly spelled with strange capitals, this was a Dutch popgroup/singer). MoiraMoira 07:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm aware of the sockpuppeteer behind this. However, it seems you accidentally restored some contentious text added by one of his socks in the process. And as far as I can tell the edit you reverted was an administrator cleaning up after him. Jafeluv 07:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes that is why I checked and found the version restored to was a faulty one with wrong names. Collgeague Trijnstel's version (she did the extensive filing on this specific vandal) I restored - as you can see the one chosen contains wrong names. How ever - once all the sockpuppets are rolled up I guess the articles need careful checking anyway what is wrong, right or nonsense since it is a total mess nowadays alas. The one part which was wrong happily has been deleted ITMT I saw. MoiraMoira 07:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed, thanks for the explanation. In general I've seen good work from you and will gladly support this request. Jafeluv 08:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support, green flag! —DerHexer (Talk) 10:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - handels a lot of the crosswiki abuse affairs on nl.wikipedia JZ85 10:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm fine with it. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 12:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support --dferg ^{☎ talk} 12:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support definitely --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support --Jyothis 15:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support Yes please Mardetanha ^talk 15:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - WinContro 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - Does good vandal fighting work Olivier Bommel 19:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support - Ofcourse! Apoo 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes--Dalibor Bosits ^© 19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Of course --Trijnstel 19:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Of course, enough cross-wiki experience and trusty - Hoo man (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Of course Elfix 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support Sure. --Erwin 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support by –BruTe ^talk 07:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Pleased to support. --Mercy 09:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Sure! -Barras 15:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Vituzzu 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - But please don't become a total no-lifer, turn the pc off once in a while ;-) Fontes 23:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Don't see why not. Ajraddatz 00:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
•   Support Lymantria 08:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Of course, one of the most reliable admins I know. Mathonius 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- Per Mathonius. EdBever 12:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support without a shadow of a doubt. oscar 13:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Long history of abuse of administrative power and of cross-wiki stalking Guido den Broeder 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

    Question: Could you provide some diffs for such hard words? I wouldn´t ask if there were just oppose, but such wording is just a step away from a personal attack. If this is true, i will also strike my vote. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  The problem with this user is that she operates mostly out of view of the community. As long as she is issuing long blocks to IP-ranges of schools nobody cares that much (well, I do [1], and there have been many protests against her eagerness to block at nl:Wikipedia), but once in a while she also decides that a non-anonymous user is no good and will then treat them as a vandal regardless of the nature of their contributions, follow them everywhere, aid the opposite side in any content dispute they may encounter, etc. Because this also happens much behind the community's back, and due to her enormous amount of edits, most ordinary users don't notice - and for the same reasons it is also quite undoable, plowing through page after page of user contributions, to pinpoint any diffs. Every user from nl:Wikipedia who voted here knows it though, if only because it gets discussed quite loudly on IRC, but may have expressed at several occasions that they think the good outweighs the bad. That makes me the voice of the damned, I guess. Guido den Broeder 14:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps your remark has to do with your "excellent track record" on nl.wikipedia and your warm feeling for the sysops there? JZ85 14:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  My track record is just fine, thanks. I was thinking of other users that got victimized.[2] Guido den Broeder 15:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  You track record is poor, you have been blocked indefinitely on nl:wp. Like WizardOfOz I suggest you come up with evidence for such harsh words. EdBever 10:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry but user is blocked and can´t answer here. --WizardOfOz ^talk 15:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support provided she promises not to stop her work on the Dutch Wikipedia - Andre Engels 19:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• sure - why not? Effeietsanders 19:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Sure! Jarii94 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Andre Engels Kwiki 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done Melos 11:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)