Requests for global permissions

Bray's Request for Global IP block exemption

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Though a couple users have correctly noted that a global IP block exemption is not decided by a community vote as it is permission granted by Stewards, I'm going to close this, essentially, as ❌ as the requestor has not sufficiently articulated a reason for requesting nor a need, particularly when you consider that the overwhelming majority of global IP rangeblocks are soft rangeblocks, which prevent only (a) account creation (when logged out) and (b) anonymous editing. Additionally, unlike the Wikimedia network wikis, Miraheze prides itself on offering additional permissions to registered users allowing them to edit through Tor by default, unless individual wikis (and there are not many) have removed the  user right. If the user is still adversely affected, then they may request at stewards' noticeboard, the updated venue in light of the incorrect community voting that has taken place in this request, provided the user articulates a clear reason and need. Additional follow up by a Steward is likely to follow. Dmehus (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User: Bray ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I use proxies for my privacy and I like to be prepared, so I would like Global IP block exemption. I have only access to a few proxies and if they all got blocked and prevented me from editing through this account because it did not have the usual "anonymous users only" restriction then I would not be able to edit. I would like to avoid that just in case, though I assume that is pretty unlikely.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
I read this page.

Questions for candidate

 * 1) Have any of the proxies you use been blocked yet? R4356th (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yes. Bray (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * All blocked open proxies and VPNs should only affect logged out users. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 05:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well actually, NDKilla global blocked an IP range with restrictions to both users and anonymous users editing under it. See Special:Contributions/5.150.96.0/21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bray (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is because it was not blocked per No open proxies policy it was blocked as it was used for abuse. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 07:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it's probably not necessary in this case, my suggestion to you,, would to keep on editing, and if an IP address gets blocked globally and all pages, contact cvt@miraheze.org and request an unblock. If you only get partially blocked from certain pages, request an IP exemption here when that time comes.  16:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I missread that, sir. I don't wear my glasses while looking at electronic screens. I still would like to be prepared, for the accord. Bray (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 1)  Per above UmbraKing (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I would just like to say that I'm not sure why this matter became something that needs to be voted on. While it seems like GIPBE is listed as something that can be requested on this page, I don't really think this is a matter that requires a community vote. I'd rather such requests are made directly to Stewards (preferably via email even) and are dealt with there rather than becoming a community vote. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has an email. Bray (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Adding an unnecesary support since Cocopuff2018 added an unnecessary oppose. Waldo (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Checkuser is a restricted tool and there is privacy policies, on top of that using a proxy in any shape way or form goes against miraheze's Terms of Use I would suggest refraining from using a proxy/vpn and using your main IP aswell, plus there is privacy policies.  --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While it seems unlikely this user needs a global IP block exemption, I would just note that this is the one global user group that is not a vote and a discussion amongst other users; thus, your vote will not matter. A steward will decide whether a global IP block exemption is required. Dmehus (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read my request then you'd know that I never asked for the checkuser right. Please think about what you type. Also you act like I have a choice. Looks like you don't live in my home so I can understand how befuddled you are, so please give your "advice" to people that actually need it. From what I understand is that any user can edit through a proxy, it's just that all proxies have to be globally blocked to prevent abuse, and so your logic is weak since I not only do I not have a choice but you seem to believe that no one should use proxies. I simply just want to be prepared and what I get from you is that you hate privacy and being safe. Also, please read carefully next time since I never asked for a restricted tool. Bray (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) From No open proxies policy.(But I'm weakly against it because it's my first vote.)--Waki285 (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the policy isn't about not using proxies it's for making it harder for anonymous users to. Bray (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) seems unneeded. Zppix (Meta &#124; Sysadmin &#124; talk to me) 05:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) On your home wiki, you can request a Local IP block exemption from an Administrator or Bureaucrat. Justarandomliberal (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Justarandomliberal you missed my point. Bray (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

R4356th's Request for Interwiki Administrator

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Successful. Clear consensus, in which there was unanimity that were no issues or concerns about the candidate. Dmehus (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User: R4356th ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I already volunteer with some advanced rights here on Meta and would like to help out more. I have been volunteering a lot on Miraheze for the past few months by translating, helping other users etc. I want to be able to help out users who want to be able to use interwiki links in their wikis. I will also use the right on my own wikis but it is not the main reason behind requesting this right and I would have requested for local  rights on those wiki, if that were the case. I meet all the requirements:
 * Have at least 1000 total global edits on Miraheze: I had 2,508 edits while writing this request.
 * Have had their Miraheze account for at least 2 months: I created my account on 5 June, 2020.
 * Be involved in some way in community matters: I am an active Meta Translation Administrator, Wiki Creator and Patroller. I am also very active on Discord (and sometimes on IRC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4356th (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Valid reasoning and nicely worded. I will support this since you seem to meet the criteria plus have good reason to request. Danner (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This could be debatable, especially since global rights can only be given to those who have met the criteria, thus, eliminating the chance of hat-collecting. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I already meet all the requirements. R4356th (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Even if the local rights can be sufficient for him, I think there are very helpful and trusted for hold the global rights. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 08:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  The weak part of my support vote is because in my opinion, there are too many interwiki administrators at the moment. I do not think there are enough interwiki requests to justify having 8 (9 with R4356th if successful) interwiki administrators. I have seen the discussion below about some of them being inactive, and if that is the case I would support removing them and even so I think there would still be enough. However, I have looked at R4356th's contributions and I believe that there is enough experience and activity for this role and therefore I do not feel an oppose only on the grounds that there are too many is necessary in this case. DeeM28 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I think this candidate will do well and I believe they will be active. Frigg (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. There is no need for more interwiki admins IMHO.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC) edited --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinion, I cannot really agree with it since there are only 8 Interwiki Administrators at the moment. Three of them are also inactive and one of them is barely seen on Meta. R4356th (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some are active and response time is fine.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Some are active" - I never said there is not any active interwiki admin. I just pointed out that almost half of the team is inactive. R4356th (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is no need for more iw admins, there should have been a quota for total number of IW admins, because there should be a set definition as to which number of IW admin is enough IW admins. &mdash; revi  18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited my vote, I forgot to include "IMHO". --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

WikiJS's Request for Global Sysop

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Unsuccessful, closure per User close policy. Good-faith request. Candidate should take the concerns expressed and integrate themselves within the community by volunteering in other ways, without the need for additional permissions, first. Dmehus (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User: WikiJS ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I am interested in the CVT, as well as I am interested in helping the community as a Global Sysop, and I am familiar with all policies at the time. I have never been a sysop outside of my wikis, but I have administrative experience in certain games (Roblox games to be more specific). I assume good-faith, understanding the CoC (Code of Conduct), CP (Content Policy), and not related to this right, but understandment of this policy, Dormancy Policy.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
Feel free to put your votes in the comments, as I will take all opposes, abstains, and supports into consideration.

Questions for candidate

 * Why you should be GS? How you will get reports from users? What user right in GS toolkit is most important?--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Hat collecting + 355 edit globally on only 10 wikis, not to mention recent "incident" at RfP.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Hm, good point. What is hat collecting though, probably a stupid question for someone who is requesting global sysop.  Wiki JS  13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Sorry, the Miraheze community does not sell hats! You might be able to get them here though. Seriously speaking, +1 to what MrJaroslavik said above.  13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  I just meant to post a comment but was forced to go eat. But my comments are exactly the same as what others have said, so here comes an extra strong oppose as well. Only less than 400 edits on all Miraheze wikis, previously requested wiki creator rights and sysop rights on the Public Test Wiki (these I have been granted but not many edits (only 2) have been made there by this user). By the way, there is no clear evidence for such a great right. Maybe sometime again, not now and not necessarily this year. --Anton (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

DarkMatterMan4500's Request for Global Sysop

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User: DarkMatterMan4500 ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
Well, considering we only have 1 global sysop left, and the fact that there really hasn't been many global sysops since Zppix and MrJaroslavik resigned in recent months, I've been hesitant whether or not I'd want to try out being a global sysop for these reasons: Not only have I been helpful in many reports in the past to the CVT, but I've also helped in providing evidence to my reports. With this, I could lock any disruptive user as a last resort. But that's not all: I've been on here since January 2020, mostly active within the community, but didn't get fully involved with the entire Miraheze community until Around September to October when I joined Miraheze's server on Discord. I hope I can be as much helpful than I am now. Feel free to ask me any questions and I should be able to answer them as soon as I receive them. Thanks. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments given by user (if any)
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  This user is extremely helpful, helps stewards, which is what the right was intended for, and is indeed friendly. This is all of the qualities I like in a GS  Buk kit  (talk) ( C ) 19:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, I actually wasn't expecting this from you, but yes. I've been combating vandalism on wikis that have active vandalism occurring, so having this permission wouldn't be any different either. While sometimes my reports might have mistakes and all, most of them are very accurate and I do pay attention to the tiniest of details in my reports. Plus being a participant of fighting off vandalism, sockpuppetry and spam bots makes it feel like I have some sort of power within me. I've learned quite a lot about these permissions over the months of me being on this platform, and know the full scope and purpose of this type of responsibility. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Ugochimobi's Request for Interwiki Admin

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * ✅. Consensus from the discussion is clear here. The user was asked many questions from the community, some of the most thorough questions I've seen asked of any interwiki administrator candidate. The user has responded to the lone opposing view by correcting that they said they would use sound, independent editorial judgment without the use of any automated tools, in addition to one of the most rigorous assessment processes I've ever seen outlined by an interwiki administrator. It's perhaps helpful to provide a clarifying note here in terms of what constitutes a malicious site. In general terms, it is any website that either (a) is a phishing website or (b) distributes viruses or potentially other harmful malware. Parked domains (i.e., those GoDaddy.com or Google-hosted parked domain websites), with advertising on them, while indeed spammy, wouldn't constitute malicious for the purposes of the policy. It's also perhaps helpful to clarify when global interwiki administrators should use their rights to edit a wiki's local interwiki table. They should add or modify an interwiki prefix following a request from a regular contributor of the local wiki (i.e., not necessarily a local bureaucrat or sysop). While there's no requirement to have local consensus prior to adding or changing an interwiki prefix on a given local wiki, in the event the addition or change was disputed, the change or addition should be reverted until the local discussion concludes, closed by a local bureaucrat (or a Steward where there aren't any active bureaucrats). As such, if they are themselves a regular contributor on the wiki, it should be fine to an add an interwiki prefix, but as, perhaps, a recommended best practice, it would be a good idea to reach out to local bureaucrat(s) and see if they have any objections to the interwiki administrator adding local interwiki prefixes as they may from time to time have a need to do. Finally, with regard to the interesting hypothetical question on whether a global interwiki administrator should defer to any local interwiki administrator (if any) on the wiki, while the policy is silent on this, though not an obligation, I would say it would also be a very good practice to follow the practice of Stewards and Global Sysops and perhaps locally ping that local interwiki administrator to the local request. If the local interwiki administrator did not action the request within a reasonable period of time (i.e., a couple of days), then it would be absolutely fine to respond to the local community's request to add or change a local interwiki prefix, notwithstanding if local wikis had any local policies or guidelines stating they were agnostic as to whether local or global interwiki administrators action requests. Another exception to this, of course, would be Loginwiki, which has no local community or locally-assigned user groups, for that matter, so it is acceptable for global interwiki administrators to use their global user right there. Dmehus (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

User: Ugochimobi ( contributions &bull; CA &bull; blocks log &bull; rights log &bull; global rights log )

Reasoning for request
I know I could help the community in reviewing local interwiki table configuration requests cuz, following the policies guiding Interwiki (like making sure no malicious links are added), I could handle that. You know, I specifically call it InterMiraheze linking cuz Wikimedia calls it InterWikimedia linking.

Additional comments given by user (if any)
I'm sure I could handle this in Good faith

Questions for candidate
I have several questions. Buk kit (talk) ( C ) 14:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) How would you make sure that the site is not malicious?
 * 2) Let's say you accidentally put a website that is dangerous, what would you do?
 * 3) A user is requesting an interwiki to let's say "scamwebsite.scam"

I have procedurally moved question here. Two questions:
 * 1) What you will do if you want add interwiki prefix to your own wiki, where you dont have local "interwiki administrator" permission? --MrJaroslavik (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) If you need to evaluate the trustworthiness of a site without the use of the website you mentioned, what factors would you take into account?
 * 2) A request to add an interwiki link, made on the Community noticeboard, turns into a dispute around whether the user who made the request was authorized to do so (whether it be a dispute about who's allowed to make a request or about consensus for the addition). How would you, as an Interwiki administrator, handle this situation?
 * — Arcversin (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Two more questions:
 * If, for whatever reason, you come across an interwiki link to a malicious site, what action would you take? What would you do if you're not sure about it?
 * How would you handle a request to add an interwiki link to a suspicious (but not obviously malicious) site, with adequate justification for why that site is to be added?
 * Also note that pings don't work if you don't include your signature in the same edit in which you add the ping. — Arcversin (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Answer from candidate
Questioner:

Okay, sorry I had to create a new section under this
 * 1) There's actually a tool I do use to track the safety of any website before I do anything on them, like for example Miraheze. Before I started a full activity on miraheze in general I scanned the website URL(miraheze.org) with the tool I do use(URLVOID.com) to make sure I'm safe. the result of the scan could be found here

--Ugochimobi (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Questioner:
 * 1) I pray I don't accidentally put a dangerous website on the table but In the case where this is true, I would remove it as immediately as possible, although I would always use my scan tool before adding.
 * 2) Well in this case where the web address is kinda funny, It really do matter, for example, if someone scrolling past the interwiki table and sees "https://scamwebsite.scam/$1" It worth attention calling and worths questioning cuz it doesn't appear to be true. A user with the ability to see the Log would want to and eventually want to see who placed it there. So yes, even though my scanner tells me it's not malicious, the appearance isn't good at all and I'll eventually reject such request except in cases that are exceptional, probably a request from Miraheze I think.

In such case, I'd do two things, either I request for interwiki configuration normally from a global interwiki admin or I discuss what I'm adding to the interwiki table on a specific discussion page on the wiki, to seek consensus before adding. --Ugochimobi (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Questioner:


 * 1) Yes I could evaluate the trustworthiness of a site without the website by considering the site's look, the site's link, see if they are actually authors or publishers that are anonymous. With these, the trustworthiness of a site can be determined
 * 2) It's quite simple, a user comes to request interwiki table configuration on a wiki that they don't administrate? I'm only trying to get how that can happen. But if it results in a dispute whereby the Bureaucrat(s) of that wiki starts attacking the user who requested, They'll be asked if they are okay with the configuration request, If not then the request should be terminated. Because I'm sure not every user could request interwiki change, Imagine an auto(confirmed) user requesting interwikimedia table change in a wmf site, that's almost impossible except in some exceptional cases.

--Ugochimobi (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Questioner:


 * 1) In such a case, I'd prefer a community discussion on why it was added to the intermiraheze table since I am not about the maliciousness of the link.
 * 2) If I got the second question clearly, How would I handle a request to add a malicious link to the intermiraheze wiki table even when there is adequate justification on why it should be added?
 * Well, I am always going to refer such a case to a community discussion board for interwiki admins since it is suspected to be malicious.

--Ugochimobi (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Decent answers, no apparent issues, and some experience with local interwiki-admin. Thanks for volunteering! — Arcversin (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your questions and support too plus thanks for the notice on the Ping template Ugochimobi (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Very good answers and have perfect experience with local interwiki-admin and helped many wikis without any mischief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew071117 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Well, this user has done some decent work as of late, and that's saying something. Others may not agree, and I don't partially blame them for having such an opposition. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  It seems like the requester plans to use a website for judging links. That is not ideal; automated tools are prone to errors and should never be used as the first option.  14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In accordance to 's question.. "I could evaluate a site maliciousness/trustworthiness better even without any external or internal tool (if made available)." Ugochimobi (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section