Steward requests/Global permissions/2012-11

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in November 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Global rollback for Derschueler

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], ... Also, I am an experienced rollbacker on de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia. -Derschueler 20:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: All examples you mentioned are from 30 and 31 May 2012. Do you have more recent examples? Trijnstel_talk 20:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

During this time I was very active and have documented all changes. Meanwhile, I have stopped this and now I have not so much SWMT-Edit (1-2 per month), but the experience has not lost me. ;-) -Derschueler 20:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Because I now have more time, the GR flag would be very useful. -Derschueler 20:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: as of now, I don't think you have enough experience fighting vandalism cross-wiki to be granted this tool. Mathonius (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

[14]... -Derschueler 20:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning towards oppose, not enough experience to show consistent ability to revert past language barriers. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Mathonius.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I trust you to use this tool well, but you can't show us your global experience with so few global edits. Become more active in e. g. SWMT and reapply in a few month, please. Regards, Vogone (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, we can't possibly grant this right based on your activity in May this year, specially since you already requested GR back then. Please request a flag only when you need it, and not before or five months after being active. Global rollback is intended for users demonstrably active in cross-wiki countervandalism or anti-spam activities, which you currently are not. Savh^ñ 22:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Savh. When you will be very active in crosswiki countervandalism active you will have this flag with no problems. Restu²⁰ 23:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• &   I see very few edits on small wikis across language barriers, and they seem to indeed date back to some time ago. Back in May I suggested that you use twinkle for a while, which I see you've got on your global.js now, I'd stick with that for a while, until there's a demonstrable level of activity to justify the request. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per above. Concerns with limited cross-wiki experience -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now. Would have no objections after seeing you active in crosswiki countervandalism job. –BruTe ^talk 11:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done Closed as at this stage it would seem impossible to demonstrate community support at this point in time. Community indication that more and consistent work in CVN or COIBot would be required. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Global rollback for EdwardsBot

The bot is for global message delivery functional to all sorts of mission-critical tasks by Wikimedia staffers and volunteers, to compensate the notorious lack of crosswiki communication. However, it needs autoconfirmed status in order to be able to operate on some wikis/pages, e.g. because of semi-protections with unintended consequences. Global rollback is no big deal and is the current only option to grant global autoconfirmed status. --Nemo 16:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• &   Outside of the scope of the policy, hence inelegible. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  For clarity, I support having a global group for stuff like this, I just don't think it can be done without a full consultation process thru a properly advertised RfC :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have no problems with that, global rollback is no big deal. Elfix 17:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Snowolf. Unluckily the Bot has nothing to do with GR, in spite of it's not a big deal. On the other hand the policy is far clear, isn't it? See here the incipit. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 17:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose as outside global rollback policy. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion: that stewards create a global group with the bot and autoconfirmed usergroups and put into them EdwardsBot (talk · contribs) and Translation Notification Bot (talk · contribs) who both face the same problems. That'd mean that conditions to use such bots would need to be strenghned, though. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  Global bots like that should face some form of extended community approval process, to make sure local communities are okey with their operation. Last I recall, several communities are not. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  And by that I mean that for example EdwardsBot is blocked on three wikis, likewise Pathos was asked not to run SynchBot on 2 wikis iirc, etcetera. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  Simple. We just don't include those wikis in the group.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  That's not a correct way to go about it, to assume that wikis are okey with bots skipping their local approval process without a global opt-in/out policy and RfC. It is simply not within the stewards' powers to enact such a change. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's practically what it is already (minus the bot bit, which is not entirely necessary). In fact, I don't think the bot should be given bot rights, as the purpose of bot rights is to hide its changes when, for this bot, its changes should be as visible as possible. I'm sure there wouldn't be issues with giving it autoconfirmed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC

  Creating an ad-hoc group, however you want to name it, and assigning it to the said bots would be a validation of the bots' activity. There is no policy for us to handle this, and the bot(s) is/are operating in violation of local policies; out of necessity, sure, but that still remains the fact. I don't think we have the authority to proceed with such a matter without a consultation with the local communities which we serve. I would agree that getting finally a global bot/rights policy that can handle these situation (and situation such as synchbot and such) is desirable and I'd be very much in favor of it, I just don't think it is within our powers, but rather within the community's powers thru a global RfC on the matter. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  It would also let us figure out which communities are okey with these bots and which ones aren't. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  Excluding wikis is not the solution. That gives to me the impresion that some wikis do weight more, are more valuable, etc. While others are not, are insignificat, etc. As a person who now works on smaller projects it looks a bit insulting to be sincere.

  I do agree this needs some approval first. I would not suggest to simply create those groups and don't tell anybody. A simple discussion at Wikimedia Forum would be appropiate, or a RFC. Whichever you preferr is OK.

  However in the case of Translation Notification Bot, it is not a bot, it's part of a MediaWiki extension. As opposed to EdwardsBot, TNB gives messages only to users that have requested to receive such messages. It's like you going to tell a friend there's something to be translated because he told you to do so. How can that be problematic?. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC) (after 5 edit conflicts)

  I'm not sure where you got the idea that we're "excluding wikis" because others weight more. I'm merely saying that some wikis have made it clear they do not like such bots and we cannot force it upon them. Regarding Translation Notification Bot, that should be first of all renamed to Translation Notification Extension as it's not a bot and the name is misleading (for example I would guess that blocks against it are completely ineffective), and if it is an extension, why could it not simply behave as autoconfirmed, ignorant of the local userrights? That is a bit confusing to me. Regardless, local communities have local rules and policies about bots having to go thru appoval, and if we want to skip that, we should be having a properly advertise global RfC, not some message on a page on meta that a couple of dozens users watch. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  It is, because you're going to exclude those wikis that have somewhat "complained" presuming iuris tantum that others are enterely fine with that. If we're going to make differences, then we should add only those projects that have no issues with those user accounts operating. As for TNB, it'd be far easier if what you proposed was possible to do. I guess this is worth a bugzilla ticket. Wikimedia Forum and RFC are widely watched pages for such a discussion IMHO. Having a discussion like, for example, the global sysop one for this would be extremely overkill. If anybody is interested I'd suggest to open a discussion. My English is not worth for that. But please note that I'm not proposing to suppress the community discussion in any way. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think a couple of pages on meta are a fit forum to overrule local policy. This is no different that the GS policy to me. Local community should have a say (and no, most people don't come to meta, let alone stalk edits on its forums) in what overrules and modifies their policies, that is, binding global policies not originating from WMF Board of Trustees decisions. And I am not presuming the others are fine with that o_O That's entirely why I want a full discussion and notification of all communities... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  Then where? Meta is the place to have the discussion. Take the example of CommonsDelinker (talk · contribs), which can be rather more dangerous and damaging than EdwardsBot and Translation Notification Bot together, and how it was approved here. If there's more discussion about this, I think we should be moving it elsewhere. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose in favor of MarcoAurelio's suggestion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose, yes, MarcoAurelio's suggestion is a better alternative. Maybe some sort of "confirmed" user group with the standard rights of (auto)confirmed users?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support MA's proposal. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Me too, but maybe we would need to ask for local communities input first before implementing this, as suggested by Snowolf above. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Out of scope per policy. Support discussion to create another flag elsewhere.‴ Teles «Talk ˱_{@ L C S}˲» 04:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suggest a Request for comment be undertaken for a suitable period of time and possibly a notice to communities seeking them to express opinion. Option exists to formulate the discussion in terms of a new right that can be sought and applied, or a specific request for a "global rollback" permission for this bot, while different in scope, suitably achieves same result.

Not done commentary indicate that this should not be granted through the global permissions process without a broader community discussion first ensuing. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Global rollback for Ralgis

Global rollback for TBrandley

Global sysop for Frigotoni

Opt-in for Wikidata

We had a discussion about opting out of global sysops, and decided to keep them for the time being d:Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2012/11#Opt_out_of_global_sysops. Please remove Wikidata from the opted-out set. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To me that seems a discussion about not requesting an opt out, rather than proactively seeking a opt-in. Regardless, unless there's a local policy stating that GS should act regardless of active administrators, it will be of limited value to add GS there, as they will not act on wikis with 50 local admins that are (hopefully) mostly active unless there's an emergency. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Snowolf. There must be clearness on this point, because GS shouldn't be operating on these kind of wikis because of the policy, however, it looks life as if the community has established something different, which has been truly borne out?--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 19:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the jist of that discussion implies that global sysops can act on wikidata as they would on any other wiki on which they are empowered to act, at least until the election of permanent administrators. The project can make this clear if they wish, but in the absence of a local policy, the global one applies. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is about allowing global sysops or not, and it is pretty clear that - at least until there are local admins - Wikidata is OK with global sysops and stewards staying on. This shouldn't be complicated by policies... there is clear consensus to allow gs/s to continue to act there for now. At a later time, I'm sure we'll re-evaluate, but for now thanks for doing this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Tpt

Tpt (talk · contribs) is currently the main contributing programmer for mw:Extension:ProofreadPage (PrP) which is used by the Wikisource domain for the majority of its transcription. Numbers of the PrP functions can be globally configured at oldwikisource:Wikisource:ProofreadPage however, there are certain components that need to be configured in respective Mediawiki namespaces. To ease this configuration and coordination issue it would be more convenient to grant global permissions access to the editinterface. If this is not suitable to the community then we will need to coordinate a process whereupon a separate WS edit interface is created and assigned. I would prefer to keep this simple if possible. -- — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Support: Tpt's work is crucial for Wikisource but some tools are very obscure to most administrators, so showing them by directly editing protected configuration is usually the most effective way to involve them (and to improve Wikisources). I don't know what are the first planned interventions and how much time is needed for them, but as Tpt maintains core daily-business Wikisource features it would also make sense for the permission to be without defined expiry. --Nemo 06:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. Phe (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support No worries. Trijnstel_talk 13:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question: Has Tpt been asked if he agrees with this nomination? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Hm, never mind. I've saw here it agrees with this. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Done for one year to expire on 10 november 2013. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Ori.livneh

I'm a developer on the Editor Engagement Experiments team. We help assess the usability of MediaWiki's user interfaces and propose various improvements on the basis of short A/B tests, which are rolled out to a sample of the editor population, for controlled intervals of time. Currently, the experimental setup (duration, activation time, etc.) is freely intermingled with the concrete implementation of the UI modification, as this example shows. This means that changes to experiment parameters require code changes and deployment to production. I propose that experimental parameters be defined in (and relegated to) a JavaScript article.

I intend to write the code to make this article available as a ResourceLoader module which individual experiments will declare as a dependency. (Something similar is currently done by WikiLove, which uses MediaWiki:Wikilove.js for configuration.) Doing so will de-couple configuration from code and will allow us to extend the duration of an experiment or roll it out to a larger subset of users without having to deploy code to production. It will also provide a central, world-readable location for experimental parameters, with obvious benefits for transparency. To do that, however, I'll need to be able to create and edit JavaScript in articles in the MediaWiki: namespace of wikis we deploy experiments to. Thanks, --Ori.livneh (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need this globally? Aren't those tests only on some wikis? If the local users are not supposed to edit the configuration, can't you place it on another wiki like mediawiki.org and request +sysop there?

It's also usually better to specify a timeframe for the flag need. --Nemo 20:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Placing it on another wiki is a good idea. Withdrawing the request. Thanks. --Ori.livneh (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Not done then. Trijnstel_talk 23:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Global editinterface for Merlissimo

I would like to to help local communities to maintain protected sites. Last time when i had this permission for 3+3 month (Steward requests/Global permissions/2011-11#Global editinterface for Merlissimo), i got many config help requests that i had do decline because the scope for using this rights was limited to two special tasks. So this time i formulate it more general:

1. Help maintaining local config pages in mediawiki namespace.

   E.g. MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage need to be updated on some wikis after changes. This task could not be completed last time, because communication with local communities took very, very much time.

2. Help solving interwiki conflicts

   escpacially many templates are sysop protected. Solving these conflicts causes much work atm for me: i have to fix the conflict using my bot; creating multiple local admin reqests for updating interwikis on protected templates; waiting some days (sometimes weeks) after local updates are done; rerun my bot to check if other bots created a conflict again caused by information from protected templates.

   Of course i'll check if the protection reason is interwiki related and i am also aware of job queue problems (you might know my actions on zhwiki according to prior agreement with server staff)

Because this right is always given for limited time, i would like to request it for one year and then i may rerequest it. Thanks, --Merlissimo (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Support highly trusted user Vogone (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support no reason why not; he used it well the last time - and also because DerHexer asked me to respond here. ;) Trijnstel_talk 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support, why not? --Makecat_Talk 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support.--Avocato (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support, I think that he really need that. --Stryn (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support –BruTe ^talk 18:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support trusted enough for temporary global editinterface, obviously. πr² (t • c) 00:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Per above. Thank you for helping! --Sotiale (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Trusted user. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  Done for 1 year until 22 November 2013. Ruslik (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for mideal

<The IP (212.149.48.43) is blocked due to cross-wiki spam. Me myself can not be meant, and if there is such behavior from this network at all is in doubt, as this is a server adress of the Commerzbank. My office desktop from which I write now has the static IP 10.134.61.25, but the blocked IP is shown nevertheless. Can you a) set an exempt for my user (so I could go on with corrections) and b) show me some examples of the cross-wiki spam?>, thanks, --Mideal (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Barras talk 15:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

10.134.61.25 is an rfc:1918 w:Private network IP address. It is not routable on the public internet. It should never be possible to make an edit or attempt an edit or make any other kind of connection to Wikimedia servers that would appear to be from that address. All interaction between such an IP address and the rest of the internet must be done through w:NAT. --Jeremyb (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: you may see edits from private networks which are internal to WMF's infrastructure, for example here, here or here (but also from 172.17.181.15). --Vituzzu (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is this section marked as not archive? It seems to me that the matter is solved and the global IPBE has been granted. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Pine

I sometimes use public wifi connections and I use an an encrypted proxy to secure those connections. Some of the proxy servers are IP blocked. This account has been made IP block exempt on ENWP but it seems that there is also a global IP block that applies. Please make this account IP block exempt globally. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 23:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please tell us which notice you got and give us the blocked IP address? (You may also send it to me via email.) Trijnstel_talk 13:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I will do this the next time I encounter an IP block, likely sometime this week. --Pine^✉ 19:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Email sent. --Pine^✉ 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Mh why don't you think ssl is enough? --Vituzzu (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I use other sites besides Wikimedia sites when I'm online using these wifi hotspots and not all sites use SSL. By using my proxy connection I make sure that all the connections are encrypted. --Pine^✉ 00:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds legit, fine with me. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, agreed - and I received the email. Done. Trijnstel_talk 16:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for 陈少举

Done--Vituzzu (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! :) 陈少举 (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for The Illusive Man

I have IP Block Exemption on the English Wikipedia, as I often have to edit from behind the Tor Network. I have shown for a few weeks that I can be trusted to sensibly edit given this freedom, and as a member of the SWMT, especially trying hard to be a counter vandal at Simple Wikipedia, this would be a major assist. Most of the time, I simply can't edit without it. Thank you for your consideration! Hope I'm not keeping you away from what I'm sure is a huge backlog of more important work. Cheers! -The Illusive Man (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you getting or have you been blocked from editing by global blocks put in place by stewards? This exemption will not circumvent local blocks. If you have a copy of an issue an email to stewards@wikimedia.org would be helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Please see the email sent to that exact address. I have been nailed by several Global Blocks, as Tor relays are universally distrusted. (For good reason, too).The Illusive Man (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Done Ticket:2012111810001271 Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for gregmatic

my ISP's proxy was blocked (SingNet). Stop blocking Singnet, it is ridiculous how many wikipedia users fromg Singapore are being blocked because their ISP's servers were flagged.

Could you kindly quote the block message? --Bencmq (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Most SingNet blocks have been local, though I will say that there has been the occasional block globally. We will need to see the blocking message to see which is the issue. To note that the IP address for you in this edit does NOT show as being blocked. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done, no further response and no indication that block is global. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)