Steward requests/Global
To make a request, read the relevant policy (global rollback, global bot, global blocking) and make a request below. Explain why membership is needed for that group, and detail prior experience or qualifications and for requesting a global block, please indicate why a global block is necessary and for how long.
Any active Wikimedia editor may participate in the discussion and vote.
| Cross-wiki requests |
|---|
| Meta-Wiki requests |
Requests for global (un)block
- none currently.
Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding
- To request, copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain why the account(s) should be locked/unlocked.
====Global lock/unlock for [[user:Foo|Foo]]====
*{{LockHide|Foo}}
*{{LockHide|Bar|wikt:fr:}} (if you know the home wiki)
*{{LockHide|Username|hidename=yes}} (if the username should not be shown here)
...
Requests for global IP block exemption
- Before requesting global IP block exemption, make sure that:
- You have a global account;
- You are logged in on this wiki, and the account is part of your global account;
- You have read the relevant description page for the access you want (see Global IP block exemption). Your request might be rejected if you don't follow their instructions, and not doing so would reflect poorly on your suitability.
- To request global IP block exempt, copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain why you need the access and why you're suitable. If needed, link to relevant discussions.
====Global IP block exempt for [[user:Foo|Foo]]====
{{sr-request
|status = <!--don't change this line-->
|___domain = global<!--don't change this line-->
|user name =
|discussion=
}}
<Add an explanation here>, thanks, --~~~~
The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a short period of consideration (typically approximately 3 days). If there is significant opposition, the discussion will require at least one week and 75% approval. This is not a vote, and all input is welcome. Stewards will determine whether consensus exists; when doing so it is likely that the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential.
- none currently.
Requests for global rollback permissions
- Before requesting, make sure that:
- You have a global account;
- You are logged in on this wiki, and the account is part of your global account;
- You have read the relevant description page for the access you want (see Global rollback). Your request might be rejected if you don't follow their instructions, and not doing so would reflect poorly on your suitability.
- To request, copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain of why you need the access and why you're suitable.
====Global rollback for [[user:Foo|Foo]]====
{{sr-request
|status = <!-- don't change this line -->
|___domain = global <!-- don't change this line -->
|user name =
}}
The request will be approved if consensus to do so exists after a short period of consideration (typically approximately 3 days). If there is significant opposition, the discussion will require at least one week and 75% approval. This is not a vote, and all input is welcome. Stewards will determine whether consensus exists; when doing so it is likely that the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential.
Global rollback for Fr33kman
- Global user: Fr33kman (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
I am a user who is dedicated to smaller wikis. I am an admin at Simple English Wikipedia and a rollbacker on enWP. I am a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team. I have a very good understanding of the need for and the use of rollback. During my time using rollback I have only ever had a single contentious use and that was decided to have been a correct use of the tool. I only ever use rollback for clear cases of blatant vandalism and always use undo if it is not clear and I wish to revert an edit. I have noticed that on quite a few small wikis vandalism can go unreverted for quite some time. Even on a larger small wiki such as my home wiki, seWP, vandalism can go unreverted. Whilst it is, of course, possible to simply undo a bad edit; rollback provides a better and cleaner method of doing so. I'm requesting global rollback because I believe I am a trusted and respected editor who has always shown that he only has the WMF's best interests at heart. Further, I have never been involved in an edit war. My SUL is active on 63 project sites which shows that I wander all over the WMF project space. Thank you! fr33kman t - c 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Fr33kman has 25-40 edits to projects that SWMT traditionally considers small wikis, excluding metawiki. I was just wondering, what is the general edit count/activity level that stewards look for before deciding to grant global rollback? NuclearWarfare 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- More than that. Looking at the distribution and nature of edits, I will say
strong no. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- More than that. Looking at the distribution and nature of edits, I will say
There are no fixed numbers. And I must confess that I've seen that name here and now for the first time ever (at least afair)... So this is obviously a 
not yet due to lack of experience in SWMT matters. Be active in a good way for two or three months on SWMT and things might be different. --თოგო (D) 00:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- No because the edits on other wikis where he is active are either thanks to welcomes or interwikilinks and I can't see global vandalism/spam reverting from him. Therefore please reapply in some months if You worked in this field, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please use the undo button a bit more on small wikis to prove a record and intent for sustained anti-vandal activity. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- All: Thanks very much for the comments, I'll take them on board. I won't request closure of this as I believe processes once begun should end naturally. I would say that perhaps global rollback is becoming too big a deal. Smaller wikis tend to allow a person who has rollback elsewhere to have it on their wiki without formality. Perhaps a lesson could be learned here also. A user who has never been blocked, has used rollback for a long time, is an admin on a popular project and has never vandalized even once, can probably be trusted with rollback globally. I will become more active in SWMT and get back to you in a couple of months; unless, of course, a steward approves this against consensus, lol :) fr33kman t - c 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- While I do think that Global Rollback is a rather a bit big of a deal, there is a good reason for that. Global rollback adds you to more than 'rollback' groups on every wiki. It also adds you to 'autoconfirmed' and gives you access to 'noratelimit', 'autopatrol', and 'suppressredirect' globally, which normal rollback does not do. Check out Global rollback if you want to know more. NuclearWarfare 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but what does that matter? He's trusted is he not? Majorly talk 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, I never said I agree with the current policy. I'm just repeating the rationale that has been told to me. NuclearWarfare 23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- For a user who is demonstrably good, and who is trusted, admission to those other groups also is not a big deal. (btw: I have read what groups you get along with rollback.) fr33kman t - c 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a position of trust but of use, thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but what does that matter? He's trusted is he not? Majorly talk 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- While I do think that Global Rollback is a rather a bit big of a deal, there is a good reason for that. Global rollback adds you to more than 'rollback' groups on every wiki. It also adds you to 'autoconfirmed' and gives you access to 'noratelimit', 'autopatrol', and 'suppressredirect' globally, which normal rollback does not do. Check out Global rollback if you want to know more. NuclearWarfare 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- All: Thanks very much for the comments, I'll take them on board. I won't request closure of this as I believe processes once begun should end naturally. I would say that perhaps global rollback is becoming too big a deal. Smaller wikis tend to allow a person who has rollback elsewhere to have it on their wiki without formality. Perhaps a lesson could be learned here also. A user who has never been blocked, has used rollback for a long time, is an admin on a popular project and has never vandalized even once, can probably be trusted with rollback globally. I will become more active in SWMT and get back to you in a couple of months; unless, of course, a steward approves this against consensus, lol :) fr33kman t - c 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Global rollback for NuclearWarfare (2)
- Global user: NuclearWarfare (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
First request, 3 months+ ago I have been working in SWMT, along with some SBL stuff for about the past three or four months, and have totaled about 750 edits on various projects. I haven't been the most active user, but I believe that I have been somewhat helpful in removing spam and vandalism, both of which would be easier with global rollback. I have used rollback extensively on several projects, and I believe that I would be able to use global rollback carefully against blatant vandals and malbots. I know that I have occasionally made mistakes with rushing into things in the past, but I promise to be as careful as possible with Global rollback. Thanks for your consideration, NuclearWarfare 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Support, User is active in spam/vandalism reverting cross-wiki. Because he mentions it, errors were made because user is a human, but he handled it well and is kind to small projects and handles the communities with respect and care, which is important IMHO. Thanks for helping, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)- support, per birdy. – Innv | d | s: 08:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- yes, seems fine to me -- Mercy (☎|✍) 08:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support user active and trusted--Nick1915 - all you want 08:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm as yet a bit uneasy with this request. NuclearWarfare needs to be careful in the future. As birdy says, an abundance of kindness and care for small projects is needed and rushing into things is far from helpful. Thanks — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support trusted and responsible person imho. oscar 11:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
See also
- User groups — Information on user groups
General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map
Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help
Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation