Steward requests/Global permissions
This is not a vote and any active Wikimedia editor may participate in the discussion.
Global rollback and global interface editor requests require no fewer than 5 days of discussion while abuse filter helper and maintainer requests require no fewer than 7 days. Global renamer and global sysop requests require no fewer than 2 weeks of discussion. For requests that are unlikely to pass under any circumstances, they may be closed by a steward without further discussion (after a reasonable amount of input).
Quick navigation:Cross-wiki requests |
---|
Meta-Wiki requests |
Requests for global rollback permissions
edit
| Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Requests for global sysop permissions
edit
| Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
- Global user: Aqurs1 (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
- Not ending before 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello. I'm Aqurs1, a global rollbacker and a sysop in Chinese Wikivoyage. As a SWMT member, I'm active in anti-vandalism and cleaning spam, especially in small wikis with no or less admins. I'm here requesting global sysop right as it can help my work be more efficient when I patrol small wikis (just like what I did in fawikt and other small wikis), I would also like to offer help in Global_sysops/Speedy_delete_requests and GSR where I made over 1500+ edits. The reason I made this application is also because multiple colleagues encouraged me to do so.
I already read and I'm familiar with local policies related to GS. If I'm granted the right, I will take it slowly to learn the toolkits and will not hesitate to ask questions to other GS or stewards if I have any doubts or concerns. 2FA is enabled. Thanks for your consideration~ --aqurs 🍧 12:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support No concerns now. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 13:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support no-brainer request. //shb (t • c) 13:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Aqurs is active in gs areas already and has sysop experience. No concerns. Ternera (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Of course.~~Sid~~ 13:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Zafkiel GD | Talk 13:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Why not – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Reconfirming my !vote. Although the mentioned iswiki incident is concerning, I believe that both parties need to improve. While I respect the opinions of BRP and Ferien, Aqurs1's cross-wiki work and dedication lead me to trust that they will be cautious and will not repeat this when collaborating with cross-wiki communities in the future. Dealing with cross-wiki abusers is a tough job; however, it must be handled with proper care and respect for the communities involved. I believe they will take this incident as a learning opportunity. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –FlyingAce✈hello 13:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support definitely, very active and experienced. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support as one of those who encouraged him to run. – Svārtava (tɕ) 14:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- I acknowledge the user's background with crosswiki and their four years as a global rollbacker, which is impressive. However, I must
Opposetheir request due to my criteria. Their last successful request was in February, just under six months ago, and they lack significant sysop experience in the past year. Moreover, some of their comments on other requests do not reflect the good faith I expect from someone seeking a global permission. Best, --Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 16:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)- Hi. I appreciate your reflect, based of the 'do not reflect the good faith' part, my comment was in good faith. The major part of that is just I'm concerned about users don't familiar with such global rights and criteria of them, participating with related discussion is not ideal in my opinion, which did leave me bad taste. There's no other meaning or accusation by that, thanks for your comment. aqurs 🍧 16:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Please note that mine is not intended as a revenge oppose, and since your comment clarified many things, I've decided to give you a chance by changing my comment to Neutral. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 18:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. I appreciate your reflect, based of the 'do not reflect the good faith' part, my comment was in good faith. The major part of that is just I'm concerned about users don't familiar with such global rights and criteria of them, participating with related discussion is not ideal in my opinion, which did leave me bad taste. There's no other meaning or accusation by that, thanks for your comment. aqurs 🍧 16:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Another possible revenge oppose by Galahad? Hmm. Support - the candidate has a crazy amount of experience in cross-wiki work and can be trusted with the access. A quick review of the GSR edits shows no glaring errors. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support definitely. كريم رائد (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 18:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. --Paloi Sciurala (talk|contribs) 18:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Alaa :)..! 19:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --M/ (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- -J. Ansari Talk 19:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is this supposed to be a support vote? //shb (t • c) 07:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
SupportStrong support —Meruleh {talk} 19:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Support--Ferien (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)- Strike "vote" per BRPever, replacing it with a regretful
Oppose. The iswiki incident is all quite poor, I'm disappointed in seemingly a few global sysops' (and potential future GSes/GRs) simply adding flames to the fire here rather than stepping back and reviewing whether they could perhaps take a less aggressive approach to the situation. Again not defending the iswiki sysops involved here either (threatening to "block your ass" and blocking over a few edits from a trusted user is perhaps excessive at best!) but when you write on local talk pages on the way you did, you're just going to be viewed as having your own agenda you want to push on a wiki. You're there to help their community, not to boss them about and tell them how to do their work. Ironically, when you cited AGF towards the admin in question (here), you violated the principle that you also assume the assumption of good faith towards you, which is technically an assumption of bad faith on your end by assuming this was not the case. This is addressed on the very guideline you cited on enwiki, Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around., as well as here on meta However, they may start making personal attacks towards you [...]. Now, you may get angry, right? As a result, your comment certainly did intensify resentments all around, as did other global sysops' comments on the page that I'm not impressed with at all either. --Ferien (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)- Update to Strong oppose per the doubling down on assuming bad faith below, although I am perhaps more disappointed of the other global sysops who have consistently acted as though they have the right or authority to override smaller wikis on content matters. I would typically reflect on whether they are likely to improve based on the feedback, per what DreamRimmer said, but we have seen nothing other than deflection here from all users involved. Not once have any of the users in question accepted that their actions might have even been slightly out of line. Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Snævar is also particularly telling on this point, with criticism of their actions being described as victim blaming and de-adminship of the admin being proposed when their own tones worsened the situation for it to get to that point ("go ahead [and block me]", "yeah right" etc are still the type of things heard on a playground too, not on Wikimedia). I doubt this comment will even slightly affect the evasion of responsibility for those involved, but I just thought I'd make my position clear. --Ferien (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- FYI, comments you cited have nothing to do with Aqurs1, so how are they relevant here? A09|(pogovor) 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there is pretty much an agreement from them there. And there is plenty of confrontational comments made by Aqurs1 themselves like, Thanks for telling us that you are lack of understanding on AGF and Universal Code of Conduct. BRP ever 13:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- My opinion is that global sysops as more experienced cross-wiki patrollers will set the tone for how discussions play out, so Aqurs1's comments also appear to be matching the attitude of existing GSes such as yourself. It'd be unfair if I only noted Aqurs1's comments when the comments you and SHB2000 made as global sysops come across as just as confrontational if not more so. --Ferien (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- FYI, comments you cited have nothing to do with Aqurs1, so how are they relevant here? A09|(pogovor) 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Update to Strong oppose per the doubling down on assuming bad faith below, although I am perhaps more disappointed of the other global sysops who have consistently acted as though they have the right or authority to override smaller wikis on content matters. I would typically reflect on whether they are likely to improve based on the feedback, per what DreamRimmer said, but we have seen nothing other than deflection here from all users involved. Not once have any of the users in question accepted that their actions might have even been slightly out of line. Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Snævar is also particularly telling on this point, with criticism of their actions being described as victim blaming and de-adminship of the admin being proposed when their own tones worsened the situation for it to get to that point ("go ahead [and block me]", "yeah right" etc are still the type of things heard on a playground too, not on Wikimedia). I doubt this comment will even slightly affect the evasion of responsibility for those involved, but I just thought I'd make my position clear. --Ferien (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strike "vote" per BRPever, replacing it with a regretful
- Support YG1 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support quebecguy ⚜️ (talk | contribs) 00:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for volunteering! Also, being a zh native speaker, Aqurs can give a great contribution for the team in those projects! --Superpes15 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support no-brainer --Wüstenspringmaus talk 16:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. Borhan (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support--A09|(pogovor) 14:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support ShifaYT ✉Talk 10:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 10:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note:- I'm still supporting. saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 15:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support sure. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good job.Hehua (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Saroj (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. --Jan Myšák (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support JavaHurricane 12:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --V0lkanic (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. —— Eric Liu(Talk) 23:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Strong support.(because of recent concerns, I will have to stay Neutral for now.) Codename Noreste (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)- Support --Langusto (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support-- Hasan (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no concerns.--人间百态,独尊变态(Talk) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd say not now. Initially, I was going to support but the recent iswiki incident has been making me think otherwise. I expect GS to have a certain level of diplomacy skills; this situation was clearly inappropriately handled. If the user is not globally banned or wmf banned, the project has the autonomy over how they handle the content unless it is clearly inappropriate. A mass revert, followed by the argument with local admin who is telling you the edits are fine is by no means acceptable for this role. While I do find few comments by local admin unacceptable for a collaborative community; I think the other involved users also played a part for things to get that far. Thus, the oppose.-BRP ever 09:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for feedback. Initially, I do not have any argument against my block. Since the block reason was 'content removal', I was just clarifying what I did actually, and I would fully respect their judgment if they consider those edits are appropriate for the community and advise against reverting them. However, the lack of communication before the block, did made me confused. The 'argument' part would be in Snævar's talk page, and that's not related of my block, it's because I believe their attitude is problematic. While I think the situation could have been managed better, but both sides need to put effort to improve it. aqurs 🍧 09:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Notice or warning aren't always necessary before blocks; it usually depends on the community. From what I see you asked local admin for clarification on block reason, which they did. But I do not see you acknowledge any mistake or error from your part there. Normally, unlock requests (at least on my home wikis) starts with understanding of the issue, followed by corrective measures. BRP ever 09:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for feedback. Initially, I do not have any argument against my block. Since the block reason was 'content removal', I was just clarifying what I did actually, and I would fully respect their judgment if they consider those edits are appropriate for the community and advise against reverting them. However, the lack of communication before the block, did made me confused. The 'argument' part would be in Snævar's talk page, and that's not related of my block, it's because I believe their attitude is problematic. While I think the situation could have been managed better, but both sides need to put effort to improve it. aqurs 🍧 09:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral Per BRPever. bright mensaje 08:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose In case anyone else is wondering, "the iswiki incident" can be read about here. It doesn't look too great for the candidate. --MF-W 17:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, no. The concerns voiced above are clearly problematic, as is you telling a local administrator that what you said above only that show you are refusing to follow policy and assume good faith, in defense of another global rollbacker stating Please stop giving bot permissions to accounts of long term abusers. Uljas kai is a sockpuppet of Risto hot sir, so it should be blocked on sight AND NOT given flood permissions. You are a guest helping out on a wiki that has local administrators. If they don't feel the need to get rid of someone, that needs to be the end of it, and you have not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the expected behavior of global rollbackers. The behavior seen in that incident isn't behavior I think is really compatible with that of a holder of global rights. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- 'Refusing to follow policy and assume good faith' part is for threatening with the word 'block your ass', and the policy is linked to WP:ATTACK on Icelandic Wikipedia version, I really cannot AGF to them if they made harassment like that, as it should goes for both way. If they don't feel the need to get rid of someone, that's completely fine, but the serious thing is don't grant LTA bot or flooder flag, if they think it's not harmful, at least it affected our work. Although that's just a reminder of course, and we can do nothing if they still grant flags to LTA. If you believe that it's a major red flag, I'll respect your decision anyway. aqurs 🍧 03:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- You're still saying don't grant LTA bot or flooder flag. Granting of permission flags is at the discretion of the local administrators, and the demand made by A09 was delivered in a way that began the conversation confrontationally. You defended that "reminder", and I maintain that impacts my assessment of your judgement and communicative abilities as a global rollbacker. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'd hate to break it to you, but I'm sure being on Meta-Wiki, you'll probably have found on by now that not everyone is a native English speaker. I'm not saying the way Aqurs1 responded was perfect (I certainly would've used phrasing that's a bit more calmer, but I'm also an en-N speaker), but they are also not a native English speaker and expecting them to be spot-on with communication in English goes against the entire principle of the Wikimedia Community aiming to cater to a diverse range of linguistic abilities – all the more so when the phrasing Aqurs1 used was still within the bounds of what's considered civil. I will also say it's pretty disappointing on your end to expect everyone to have that ability. //shb (t • c) 10:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Aqurs1 did not need to chime into that debate at all. They had the option to simply ignore the talk page in its entirety and remain uninvolved, but decided to chime in regardless. That is a decision that doesn't require linguistic ability to be able to make. Your point is correct that the comment they made was civil. My point is that they do not need to get involved at all. It was fully an option for them to let the discussion between A09 and Snævar continue and come to a natural end, without their involvement. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'd hate to break it to you, but I'm sure being on Meta-Wiki, you'll probably have found on by now that not everyone is a native English speaker. I'm not saying the way Aqurs1 responded was perfect (I certainly would've used phrasing that's a bit more calmer, but I'm also an en-N speaker), but they are also not a native English speaker and expecting them to be spot-on with communication in English goes against the entire principle of the Wikimedia Community aiming to cater to a diverse range of linguistic abilities – all the more so when the phrasing Aqurs1 used was still within the bounds of what's considered civil. I will also say it's pretty disappointing on your end to expect everyone to have that ability. //shb (t • c) 10:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- If block your ass is truly such an offensive comment that you cannot even bare to assume good faith that the admin could just be having a bad day, how do you intend to deal with the more emotionally charged situations global sysops face? Global sysops have to collaborate with smaller wiki admins, not find themselves in conflict with them. If a single comment stops you from assuming good faith, that shows a poor ability to work through conflict because as much as you seem to like to point to AGF, you're simply not following it. The moment you assume bad faith because of a single bad comment, as you've now explicitly stated you have (I really cannot AGF to them), your assumption of good faith has gone out the window. How can you even point to AGF when you are actively refusing to follow it yourself? --Ferien (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- You're still saying don't grant LTA bot or flooder flag. Granting of permission flags is at the discretion of the local administrators, and the demand made by A09 was delivered in a way that began the conversation confrontationally. You defended that "reminder", and I maintain that impacts my assessment of your judgement and communicative abilities as a global rollbacker. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- 'Refusing to follow policy and assume good faith' part is for threatening with the word 'block your ass', and the policy is linked to WP:ATTACK on Icelandic Wikipedia version, I really cannot AGF to them if they made harassment like that, as it should goes for both way. If they don't feel the need to get rid of someone, that's completely fine, but the serious thing is don't grant LTA bot or flooder flag, if they think it's not harmful, at least it affected our work. Although that's just a reminder of course, and we can do nothing if they still grant flags to LTA. If you believe that it's a major red flag, I'll respect your decision anyway. aqurs 🍧 03:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. I don't see any problems on iswiki: they are the usual problems, already seen and poorly addressed by some small wiki. --Mtarch11 (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral--Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to those who opposed here, which made me think more about it, and let me had some reflect to myself. My main point would be AGF is a two-way street. I believe iswiki should treat all users equally, from those with zero edits to admins and bureaucrats. But when they threatened to block A09 with a statement like that, in my view, is not conducive to collaborative communities like Wikimedia. I always strive to act in good faith, and my replies to the iswiki admins were made in that spirit.
- I am aware of my mistakes in the conversation, that I left confrontational comments to the local sysop, which is not ideal. My stance for the future is clear: I apologies on that, and I will not repeat this type of behavior moving forward.
- Not trying to convince anyone or what, but it happened, at least this is the best thing I can do here. aqurs 🍧 14:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support; the recent drama at is wiki and the subsequent U4C case does not convince me anyway. If the user has acknowledged the problem, that's okay. Given that the editor has posted a sincere apology right above this vote, I have no reason to oppose this. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. Yours sincerely, Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 03:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per the communication pointed out above, particularly by Ferien. Also I am not a fan of blanket reverts of edits based solely on what user made them, especially so when an abuser is known to frequently engage in "productive" editing of one sort or another as well. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC) - Support - I was planning to sit this out due to the controversy (which is not in itself a negative, but more of the fact that I couldn't tell who was right) raised by some people above, but the OP's apology convinced me that this should be a one-off, at worst. Leaderboard (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no concerns 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The iswiki incident doesn't inspire much confidence, especially since the role of Global Sysops involves working closely with local communities and respecting their autonomy. Given the broad scope of their work and how hard it is to keep track of everything they do, it's important that they're highly trusted. Right now, I’m not confident enough to support this. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this incident on iswiki is not so critical as not to entrust Aqurs GS + he realized and admitted his mistake, so Weak support. Oostpulus (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Request is on hold for steward discussion pending closure. EPIC (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- As per discussions among stewards, this request is unsuccessful. The main rationale for this decision is due to the concerns raised, and the opposition that has come up because of it, which has lead us to ultimately close as no consensus to promote. On the other hand, I'd like to apologize for the delay in closing this request - limited participation and mixed opinions lead to the closure having been delayed. EPIC (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Requests for global rename permissions
edit
| Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
- Wiki: meta.wikimedia.org (list 'crats • bot policy • summary • 'crats rights)
- User: Iming (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
- Not ending before 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am an edit filter manager on Chinese Wikipedia, I've read the policies and guidelines about rename, and I'd like to help process rename requests on zhwiki and global rename requests written in Chinese. I noticed that the global community expects the requester of this right to have advanced permissions on their home wiki, I'm not sure whether the edit filter manager permission meets this requirement or not, but based on enwiki, I believe it does. So I have submitted my request here. If it does not meet the requirement, I'll withdraw it. Thank you! :) Yours sincerely, Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 04:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Candidate is a trustful user in zhwiki, and an helpful EFM. As my experience to work with them, I believe that Iming are trustful enough to have the rename access, and I'm glad to have more zh native renamer to help on the queue. Despite on their low edit-matrix, I don't believe it's a big dealer. Thanks for volunteering! aqurs 🍧 05:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support not a sysop anywhere but trusted. //shb (t • c) 05:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support per Aqurs1 and SHB; sysop rights and higher edit-matrix would be nice, but seems fairly trusted. – Svārtava (tɕ) 06:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Seems to be trusted locally --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Question: If you become a renamer, what would you look at before accepting a rename request? – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, I will mainly perform the following checks:
- Whether the new username meets the technical requirements;
- Whether the requester has changed their username too many times;
- Whether the requester is currently blocked or has been blocked on any project. Specifically, if there is a block record, then I would wait for another experienced renamer to process it for now.;
- Whether the new username contains any destructive, offensive, defamatory, misleading, or confusing content, or includes any non-public information. (Whether the new username meets the requirement of Chinese Wikipedia)
- In addition to this, I also check the user talk page of requester on their active wiki and home wiki to see how they are doing locally. (e.g. whether they have been nominated in SPI, etc.) Yours sincerely, Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 14:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to this, promotional usernames should not be accepted. Good answer. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- to be specific, no, not automatically. We have projects (dewiki, metawiki, etc.) that are allowing promotional usernames. It's important to look which wikis are listed on CentralAuth. TenWhile6 06:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to this, promotional usernames should not be accepted. Good answer. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, I will mainly perform the following checks:
- Support--Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 09:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Sonoko Konishi (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support .~~Sid~~ 23:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Question: When handling usurp requests, how to you evaluate "valid edits" under an account? Stang 01:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question. I believe that if an account has at least 50 edits anywhere, and at least 10 edits in the mainspace or draft pages (including user space), it can be considered as having "valid edits." However, most previous cases involved accounts with few or no edits, and there was no clear consensus in earlier discussions. Therefore, I am not confident in applying this standard universally, and I choose to consider usurp requests case by case. For now, I will not handle usurpation requests for accounts that exceed the standard I mentioned. Yours sincerely, Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 04:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The responses to the questions have convinced me. --V0lkanic (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Jan Myšák (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Zafkiel GD | Talk 17:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support LGTM. Borhan (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 11:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Alaa :)..! 21:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support satisfied with their answers to questions. saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. —— Eric Liu(Talk) 17:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Jet Pilot 18:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --TenWhile6 06:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Infinite0694 (Talk) 16:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Requests for global IP block exemption
edit
| Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Global IP block exempt for Α->Ω
edit- Global user: Abiran Goliah (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
<I'm live in mainland China, So I have to use a proxy to access Wikimedia's other projects and projects in Chinese languages.>, thanks, --Abiran Goliah (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Global IP block exempt for User:Kurgenera
edit- Global user: Kurgenera (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
I'm a citizen of PRC mainland. Because of GFW, I have to use VPN to access Wikimedia's other projects for further contribution. Thanks for your access.--Kurgenera (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Global user: 古海岸遗址 (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
- Global user: HMOXDSS1 (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
我是一名来自中国大陆的维基用户,先前已在中文维基百科申请本地IP封禁豁免权,由于GFW的封锁,我现在必须使用代理才能编辑维基,但我的代理被封禁,无法编辑维基的页面。因此,希望处理人员为我授予全域IP封禁豁免权以避免受到影响。--HMOXDSS1 (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- What's the connection between you("HMOXDSS1") and "Abiran Goliah"? Stang 01:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- 抱歉源代码复制错了。Sorry, the source code was copied wrong. HMOXDSS1 (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- 已修复错误The error has been fixed HMOXDSS1 (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: duplicate request (closed as dupe) at ticket:2025041610004288. — xaosflux Talk 18:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Global user: Enmingyan (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
I needing use vpn bypass internet firewall. I trying log in https://auth.wikimedia.org/enwikisource . It say Auto-creation of a local account failed: Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis.
The block was made by EPIC. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost, thanks, --Enmingyan (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Global user: Ahfosh (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
I live in PRC and need to use VPN due to the GFW. I already have local IP exemption in zh-Wiki, and now applying for the global IP exemption. --Ahfosh (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Global IP block exempt for Enock4seth
edit- Global user: Enock4seth (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
Extending, a workshop I just finished leading didn't go as planned since my exemption expired yesterday, thanks, --Enock4seth (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Global IP block exempt for Md Mobashir Hossain
edit- Global user: Md Mobashir Hossain (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
Hello, I am Mobashir. Sometimes they call me that I am using Vpn! But it is completely wrong. Really. I can apply it on bnwiki but I am trying to expand my work duty volunteering to cross wiki. Thanks and regards from
, --Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Md Mobashir Hossain Can you explain that a bit more? আপনি চাইলে বাংলায় লিখতে পারেন। অনুগ্রহ করে স্পষ্ট করুন, আপনি সম্পাদনা করতে গিয়ে কী সমস্যায় পড়ছেন। কেন ভিপিএন ব্যবহার করা প্রয়োজন! ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Yahya আমি ভিপিএন ব্যবহার করি না! কিন্তু তারা বলে আমি নাকি ভিপিএন ব্যবহার করি। এটাই বড় আশ্চর্য। তবে সেটাও আবার ব্রাউজারের ক্যাচ পরিষ্কার করলে আবার ঠিক হয়ে যায়। তবে এভাবে আর কয়দিন চলা যায়? যদিও আমার কাজের পরিধি বাংলা ভাষার প্রকল্পগুলোতে তারপরও যেহেতু আমি ইংরেজি উইকিসংবাদে এবং বাংলা উইকিসংবাদে (ইঙ্কিউবেটরে) কাজ করি তাই আমার অধিকারটি অত্যাবশ্যক হয়ে পড়ছে। ~ Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Global IP Block Exempt for Adin.leo.d.y
edit- Global user: Adin.leo.d.y (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
Per UTRS #102895 --DeltaQuadBot (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions
editPlease be sure to follow the instructions below:
|
Requests for other global permissions
editPlease be sure to follow the instructions below:
|
Global abuse filter helper for Daniel Quinlan
edit- Global user: Daniel Quinlan (edits (alt) • CA • global groups • crossactivity • verify 2FA)
Hi, I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia and active in helping maintain abuse filters including anti-vandalism filters (like 614), filters for common mistakes (like 1354), and LTA filters. I'm requesting global abuse filter helper so I can review private filters for ideas to improve local filters and I hope to occasionally make suggestions that could help improve global filters. Please let me know if you have any questions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support trusted and has a valid need. //shb (t • c) 00:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support —MERULEH 00:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support –FlyingAce✈hello 00:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support no issues with this. Ternera (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
See also
edit- User groups — Information on user groups
- Global rights log — Log of global permissions changes
- Archives
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