Steward requests/Global permissions/2015-03

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in March 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Hi, I'm Epicgenius. I am a rollbacker at 3 Wikimedia projects and have been editing since 2012. I've been doing countervandalism across Wikimedia projects since mid-2013, and I think that the GR flag will be easier than using Twinkle or other gadgets. I've read the global rollback policy and think that this will help me revert vandalism faster. Thank you for your consideration. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, who are you? --MF-W 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am most active on English Wikipedia and Commons, so maybe I am not that well known on other projects. But I think that GR will allow me to revert more quickly whenever there is crosswiki vandalism. Epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I cringe a bit Special:CentralAuth/Epicgenius, why so little? did you read GR-"-- make heavy use of revert on many wikis.", you don't seems doing many reverts on many wikis. --AldNonymous^Bicara? 21:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Actually, on further thought, can I withdraw this request? It seems that I don't need it right at this moment, since I only am active on 4 wikis. Epicgenius (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Request withdrawn per user request. --Stryn (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not ending before 9 March 2015 13:47 UTC

I want to ask for Global sysop right. I am now working mainly on interwiki on small Wikitionaries, I plan to work on connecting pages with Wikidata on small Wikipedias too. There is minimal activity and local sysops are mostly inactive and some experiments, pages marked for deletion, empty pages etc. stays here for long months. I have sysop rights on cswiki, cswikt, skwikt and wikidata now, so I could say I am experienced user. JAn Dudík (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Question: I notice you tag this page for deletion ky:Калып:Tlc/doc, this wiki have 3 admins, and none of them is you, will you delete this page without being requested by local communities or the author if you are a Global Sysops? --AldNonymous^Bicara? 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  Usually I only mark page for deletion, if is not typical experiment. But if there are marked pages for years and I am able to understand why this page should be deleted, I'll delete it directly. There are wikis like setswana wiktionary, where are no active local users, and these would be my main field of work. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Support}} Yes, quite good answer, but I prefer to see GS not interfering with local communities.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 07:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) changed to {{Oppose}} After reviewing AuvajsAuvajs block on cs.wiki I see the indication of block you made is for punishment rather than for stopping him from editing which should be given if the user do disruptive editing, block shouldn't be made to punish but to prevent. Sorry I'm changing my opinion on this.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 15:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  @AldNonymous: He didn't impose the block himself, the block was given by another admin. But when I asked Jan Dudik via email to uplift this block he responded only after the block (of 3 days!) was expired apologizing he was too busy in real life - but since he made lots of editing before that I concluded his explanation must not have been true. I don't say he lied to me - but I say his explanation was very dubious. And knowing he's a friend of the admin who "punished" me and usually acts in accord with him, it seems like he didn't intervene because he supported this "punishment".--AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  The reason for JAn's block was this revert – JAn Dudík probably wanted to prevent further reverting. --Tchoř (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  I see this is vandalism caused by behavior. Changed to Neutral I still have concern about Juandev comment.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 12:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Look, this was my way of pointing out that Danny B. without any community consensus and regardless of protests changed how a certain important template shows an error - which caused many pages look very ugly. Danny B., as it is his custom, totally ignored all protests. When I raised issues, they called me troll and tried to censor the discussion by deleting this post. As you may seem from the history - those supporting Danny B. reverted my post and those confirming my observations reverted back. Finally they "won" not because their arguments were better (in fact they had none) but because they used their admin rights to enforce their will - the block by Jan Dudík is a good example. Calling my post trolling or vandalism is just how one side of the conflict depicts their opponents. It is by all no means an objective stating. In the same manner I can rightly say that they deleted my post simply because they don't like me personally and had no arguments to deal with my points. My view is at least equally valid as theirs. But I'm not an admin able to block them for censoring a discussion and I don't call them trolls because that would be stupid and they would block me again for alleged "personal attacks". But please don't consider it a vandalism if you don't know all details of the case - that would be inappropriate. --AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• {{support}} Fine by me. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 08:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  Neutral I worry and hesitate when I see Juandev's comment. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -jkb- 11:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC) well known to me, trusty
• Question: Why? It is very useful to locate the speedy category in local language. --Alan ^(talk) 20:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  phab:T89809 [1]. JAn Dudík (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply :) --Alan ^(talk) 10:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Support - No concerns, trusted bot owner. Caliburn (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support — Danny B. 08:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted user. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Natuur12 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted from what I've seen, support. --Atcovi (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed to  Oppose, per Jaundev and Auvajs. --Atcovi (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose.1) On January 31 I sent him email via the Mediawiki interface asking to uplift an unjistifed ban imposed on my IP address by another CS Wiktionary admin. That ban was totally unreasonable, a kind of personal revenge by this admin based on the fact that I dared to criticise another admin who keeps ignoring some community rules himself but demands adhering to them from other users - a kind of behaviour which I find extremely hypocritical. As a matter of fact immediately after this ban was imposed, other CS WIKT users started to complain about it and asked the admin for explanation which he didn't provide. So it is reasonable to say that this ban was controversial. Speaking of Jan Dudík, he didn't care to answer my email until February 5 saying he was too busy in real life. However reviewing his edits between January 31 and February 5 I counted 178 edits on 9 projects. (And I may have overlooked some projects). So his explanation is at least dubious if not outright untrue. This leads me to the assumption that if there were any problems with him, he would probably seek ways to avoid responsibility. 2) On CS WIKT he has shown a paramount example of NOT assuming good faith calling some users "trolls" because they dared to criticize admins that were harrasing some other users. This is not a good point because most of you don't understand Czech, I know. 3) He's a part of group of admins that literally run CS WIKTIONARY as if it was their own kingdom. If someone isn't ready to bow to them, he's repeatedly harassed and stalked. That happened to me and some other users as well. --AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  When I got back to internet, your block was expired. Few days later, when I know who is it, I decided to answer to this newbie. JAn Dudík (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  some 5 weeks registered, 2 blocks on cs.wiktionary. Somebody should check user this account. -jkb- 00:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, cs.wikt admins are misusing admin rights and keep blocking their oponents for alleged "trolling" or "personal attacks". I will probably be repeatedly blocked in the future and prevented from editing by all means because I am brave enough to criticise their dictatorial manners. And btw I am active in Wikimedia projects since December 2004 as stated on my userpage there. --AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  @-jkb-: This user is actual account of known puppet master called Hungrily voracious slug (known also as Macronyx, Slimák, Aeromix, Mince, Lexiq, AuvajsAuvajs and many more).

  @-jkb: You "forgot" to mention that this happened mostly in 2006, MANY years back and I've been an ordinary editor ever since. And since I supported your "enemies" at that time and oppose your friends nowadays it is evident that whatever you say is personally biased and evidently intended to make harm, not to provide objective information. --AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  Please notice, that I use blocking rarely - and as a global sysop I probably would use it rarely too - I usualy find only old vandalsims... JAn Dudík (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose I know Jan edit several WMF projects and run his bot, but there is one big issue with his behaviour on the projects. He si a member of a bunch (most of them are admins), who on cs/sk Wikiprojects suppress community or community processes and push their own will using advanced rights. Their behaviour is offensive towards people, who does not agree with them and led to chasing editors out or blocking them. Here are some examples of this behaviour seen on Czech Wikiversity, but could by also founded on Wiktionary or Wikinews:
  1. He used his bot on cs.wv as a weapon. He may argue, that he was asked to do so, but by who? By user:Danny B., who is in conflict with the local community. Some of the most active contributors, started to use a template, which makes Wikiversity more arranged. Instead of a single revert and disucussion, the bot was used to surpress community processes, leaving pages with errors.
  2. does not support community consensus.
  3. Use pejorative vocabulary to name Wikiversity content.
  4. Does probably not tell the truth, about his arrival to cs.wv ("I discovered this discussion by chance" --> sock claims Jan came after the announcment from Danny B., JAn Dudík denies --> Jan admints, that he was informed about discussion, but resists, to open it was an accident).--Juandev (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
     1. There was no community consensus for using of such template anywhere else than in predefined set of pages for testing, debugging and possible further development if found useful. As well as there were objections about its content or even its own existence/need. On the other hand, massive inserting of such template was simple forcing of usage of that alleged template, so removing this forced massive insertion by bot was correct solution of how to deal with such activity.
     2. The summary clearly points to the discussion where there was no opposition for the proposal for nearly 4 months, thus the policy was included. So reverting of its undiscussed unilateral removal was correct action.
     3. Mentioning that the Czech Wikiversity contains many worthless pages is simply stating of the status quo as everybody can check (couple examples: Kanlanchoe, Database of old machines, Stink/Juandev/Entryhall stinks, Zetor 25/Kychot, Illness/Juandev/Foot swelling and hundreds of other such examples)
     4. Your personal speculation without any provement.
        — Danny B. 13:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
        1. Well, in this you are just partly right. This: "for using of such template anywhere else than in predefined set of pages for testing" information is not correct. Maybe you wanted that and forgot to told id. But what I wanted to say my statment was, that to use a bot was not a proper way. Also the bot left errors in the pages.
        2. Well, I dont know how you image discussion. You or Sikky proposed the change and I asked something. I was wayiting for the answer which I never recived. So from my point of view it was forced without a discussion.
        3. Bad quality of the page is still not a reason to use pejorative vocabulary. Especially by a person, who want so be global sysops.
        4. Yes, my personal speculation.--Juandev (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I do not know him personally but I'm quite alarmed by the previous comments. Sorry but on the main issues (posted 1 week ago) you did not provide answer. --Nastoshka (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support As an arbiter from cs-wikipedia I can only say that I have only positive experience with Jan and his work. --Vachovec1 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Something about User:AuvajsAuvajs. When he joined cs.wikipedia, his goal was not to improve Wikipedia, but to disrupt. He created dozens of abusive puppet accounts in order to troll. In the 2006 arbitration case (User:Vandalista was alternative (puppet) account of later User:Aeromix who is User:AuvajsAuvajs now) he was banned from cs-wikipedia for 1 month and restricted to one account. His behavior at cs-wiki has improved since, but his current conduct at cs-wiktionary bears similarity to his cs-wikipedia beginnings. A coincidence? --Vachovec1 (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Your Wikipedia account history shows you are active on Wikipedia only since 2012 and have absolutely no knowledge of the "old days". I made more than 6000 edits between 2004-2007 and a vast majority of them were constructive, helping. I contributed a LOT to improving Wikipedia. I added LOTS of good content. If you say that I joined cs.wikipedia in order "but to disrupt" you are nothing but lying and if you don't take your word back and appologize, I will hold you accountable for your words of defamation. And btw since cs wiki ArbCom decided I was restricted to using one account only I stricly adhered to this rule. As a matter of fact I haven't been really active on Wikipedia ever since. My problems at cs wikt started last year when I tried to become active there. What I found there was a group of admins who were (and still are) forcing others to either bow to them or leave. Whoever opposes to them has no word in community discussions regardless of veracity of his/her arguments, have his/her work constantly sabotaged, is treated differently than the "favorite" ones (double standard), is considered "troll" and blocked, is blocked for fabricated reasons etc etc etc. And, yes, Jan Dudík is one of these admins misusing their rights and creating a project where only "some" editors can edit freely. --AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  By which means it looks simillar? User:AuvajsAuvajs is a valid contributor to cs.wikt.--Juandev (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  The statements about dictatorship and unjust blocks? Presenting himself as a brave fighter for democracy and freedom? --Tchoř (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  @Tchoř: Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. Perhaps I should emphasize that I had nothing to do with Wikipedia and (Czech) ArbCom in 2006, but when I applied for arbitratorship, I studied the old cases. The history of the case in question speaks for itself. --Vachovec1 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Note: Tchoř is one of the cs.wikt admins. Many cs.wikt users that are not part of their "circle" of friends share the opinion that some blocks performed on some of the "enemies" of this "circle" have not been adequate. It is also provable that some admins made their own opinion a "law", made important changes to the project without consulting others and regardless of protests and regularly avoid to comment on their controversial actions. And there are more things like that. All of this is provable, not opinion-based. --AuvajsAuvajs (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support It seems so easy to defame some other user, especially when all proofs are in a language not understood by the audience and part of the context the audience does not know. There is no feasible way for JAn Dudík to defend his actions, because defending (maybe any of?) them would need kilobytes of text because of the need to translate different linked edits (and related texts and community rules and precedents and …) and arguing about the accuracy of the translations. We have probably all seen how long such discussions can be even without the language barrier. Literally any defense is bound to end up as TLDNR for the readers … and a subject of a justified criticism that this place is not intended for solving years of discords between some Czech wikimedians. If you are afraid that JAn Dudík tends to abuse his powers, ask on the Czech Wikipedia. He is a trustworthy bureaucrat there for years and he even have not been ever asked to stand for the re-confirmation – everyone knows the community trusts him and reconfirmation would be wasting of the community resources. Other Czech projects unfortunately do not have more than dozen regular contributors each (with significant overlap), so any discussion get easily more personal, the mood sometime tends to be a bit defeatist and browned off and strong words tend too be used far more extensively, far over the point when the blocking (or arbitration) would already occur on the Czech Wikipedia in the same situation. Deciding to block one of the few users is hard in such a small community and none of the options seems to be really right. Being global admin and block only obvious vandals and delete only pages that should be obviously deleted is much simpler task than for example reviewing controversial block of a fellow local admin, so even in the case JAn somewhat failed in the rare cases pointed by his critics (which I actually do not think), I really see no reason why JAn would not be able to be a good global sysop. --Tchoř (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)--Tchoř (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Lenka64 (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment FYI: there's an ongoing loooong term conflicts between some CS users, namely Juandev belongs to an opposite faction than Danny B. both with supporters and opposers, both loving to out "enemies". I won't say any of those factions is absolutely right or wrong (though I believe the first one has a more trollish behaviour and the second one simply overreacted) but their judgement is anything but neutral. Finally at least one of those two parties tend to classify even neutral third parties as "enemies" just because they aren't fighting at its side. Filtering out all these quarrels I'd probably support, but I'll take some days to consider it more deeply.--Vituzzu (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you.--Juandev (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Per Tchoř. Jan is a trustworthy user, I have only good experience with his cs.wiki contributing and admin decisions. --Mates (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• @JAn Dudík: Could you please provide some examples what kind of actions you would perform as a global sysop related to your interwiki work? Vogone (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  @Vogone: e.g. in gd.wiktionary, there is bunch of obsolete categories - some of them were created by me, because were between wanted categories. After this went some users who kno language and created new names. But this old causes interwiki conflicts ant there is no sysop in gd.wikt. JAn Dudík (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose. I don't see very many reverts or anti-vandalism in your global contributions, so I'm not sure you are able to identify vandalism in languages you don't speak. However, I would like to assume you would, but the comments from other cs users above lead me to oppose. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  ""orher users"?? You mean Juandev and the other one, a known sock puppet? There are many more other users from that project, who oppose these two ones. -jkb- 15:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  "from that project" - from which project? I feel to be Wikiversian and I dont think so AuvajsAuvajs would say the same. -jkb- try to avoid personal attacks here please.--Juandev (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Maybe he's good ordinary editor on cs.wikipedia or was +/- good bot-owner, who added interwiki-links. In not special cases decent and civilized. Yes, but if encouraged by some influential sysops and/or their comrades, did edits without community consensus, or as consensus named only arguments of these more influential members, but neglected opposite oppinion of ordinary editors. He also helped make bad atmosphere for creative work. Especially on cs.wictionary and cs.wikiversity. And please, I'm not sockpuppet. So on cs.wictionary four sysops + one ordinary editor works like sockpuppets should work, though they are not sockpuppets. It means, that all power is only one-way direction and no NPOV. --Kusurija (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral What Vituzzu says is true but the whole situation still makes me uncomfortable. I might revisit this if I get the chance. --Rschen7754 17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--Zdenekk2 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  Surely, You need a very protector/patron collegue sysop. Because Your block was inadequate (I. e. too strong). --Kusurija (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Milda (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC) I know JAnD as a respectable, trustworthy and decent editor, sysop and bot master on multiple Czech projects.
• Weak support As far as I can see, the scope is met and useful contribution with the GS tool can be expected. Though, I do consider some of the concerns raised here serious and think a temporary flag duration limited to the task requested may be appropriate, but not absolutely necessary, especially since it is not intended to focus on the other part of the GS scope, the countervandalism activities. Vogone (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support He's been serving as sysop on cs.wp since 2006 and I don't recall any real issues against him. Because of his bot work, he's been active on small projects for years. In sum he has experience as sysop and knowledge about small projects. --Reaperman (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good candidate. He does lot of good work. Jedudedek (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No clear consensus. Not done. Thank you for your candidacy. Matanya (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We are currently maintaining and developing the ProteinBoxBot to make Wikidata a central hub for genes, diseases and compounds. Last week one of our runs resulted in an IP ban. I am not aware that I was doing anything out of the ordinary, nor did I use a proxy or tor. I discussed this on the project chat and it was suggested by one of the admins (see previous discussion ), to request a Global IP block exempt for the bot account (ie. ProteinBoxBot). So would it be possible to get this Global IP block exempt for ProteinBoxBot. , thanks, --Andrawaag (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

See also: ticket:2015030710003978

The account has been put in the global IPBE group. Elfix 15:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please extend expiration, thank you. --Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 20:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Previous requests can be found here and here. Trijnstel_talk 20:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 month to expire on 2015-03-11.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Savh: @Billinghurst: Please make it permanent or remove it, I can't use it like this. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 10:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In your first request you state you had to "use shared IPs for the next month". What has changed that makes this right yet again necessary? And why does it help you that much that instead of having to request renewal, you rather have it removed directly? Savh^ñ 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Savh: I want to use TOR forever, ping me next time. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 13:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Back from the archive. Still requires action. Trijnstel_talk 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, so many controversial stuff happen regarding this user. And the worst is, he don't know his own mistake and not regretting his own action, on previous closed unsuccessful RfA there are lines "I want to test steward inteligence", which is imo, counterproductive.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to, I agree with Aldnon. --Atcovi (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Has there been abuse, or misuse? The right itself only returns the status quo for a user caught in a block against general abuse, it doesn't particularly grant special access or circumvent any local prohibition.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I really need it, I have to use TOR. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done As there has been no response to Billinghurst's comment, and seeing as there is a clear need expressed here for using TOR, I confirm the exemption that has been set on Mjbmr's account. However, given the few concerns raised about the user, they will have to request, once again, the renewal of the exemption when it expires (in a few months). Elfix 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request the global IP block exemption for reasons similar to @User:Pathoschild and @User:Odder; namely because I have recently taken to using technical means of protecting my on-line privacy and security as well as preventing third parties from using traffic analysis originating from my home; unfortunately, many of the end IP addresses are covered by global IP blocks which prevents me from editing Wikimedia wikis. As a Commons administrator, I already have the local ipblock-exempt user right which should help me avoid local blocks, if they occur. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User is no longer active on OTRS. Thanks, --Krd 08:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Elfix 08:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

New OTRS member. Thanks, --Krd 08:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 09:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

New OTRS member. Thanks, --Krd 06:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

New OTRS member. Thanks, --Krd 06:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

New OTRS member. Thanks, --Krd 11:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Matanya (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remove Global OTRS-member from the above users pursuant to OTRS' Activity policy. Thanks in advance to whoever takes care of this request, and be advised: there are more to come in the following days. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Matanya (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a mistake in the list above. Please readd the flag to User:Zirland and remove it from User:~Pyb. Thank you. --Krd 10:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Done --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As promised, we're back.  ;-) Thank you in advance and until next time...... Rjd0060 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

6 Done, thank you

--M/ (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Another please. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 02:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rjd0060: I've also removed the OTRS rights from the account Érico Júnior Wouters as I see his account was closed yesterday too. Trijnstel_talk 11:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Continuing on with our inactivity cleanups. I'd approximate we're roughly about half-way done. Thank you to all of the stewards who have been assisting. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 05:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A couple of additions to change things up. ;-) Thank you. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 17:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity clean up. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 19:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Activity clean-up. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 04:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 05:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thx. --Krd 08:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, Linedwell (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing inactivity run. Thx. --Krd 07:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, Taketa (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to re-request this right. I joined the interface editors group in 2011 (request). Since then I've helped maintain many gadgets and scripts to ensure compatibility with changes made to the MediaWiki software, and to apply best practices for security or user experience reasons. As well as other maintenance as requested by users. Per the change in policy making it a temporary right by default, it was extended in 2014 (request). I'd like to request it again and serve the community at least another year. Thanks! –Krinkle^talk 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have any objections to this. Vogone (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Yes of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Sure and thanks for your work --Nastoshka (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Very experienced and active in maintaining code. Thanks, Glaisher (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 04:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• No objections. Eurodyne (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Kaldari (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Natuur12 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support. Want to thank you for your work as well. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support If I may. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 00:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Florence (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, useful tools is needed.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 00:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support please continue the next year and the next and... ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support highly skilled coder --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support and we should make this sort of request happen without fuss  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Can not think of any user better suited for this right. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - trusted editor. Taketa (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Sure!. Alan ^(talk) 08:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Supportबेनुपराज पौडेल (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--DangSunM (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Green Giant (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Legoktm (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Typical example of why Editinterface should not be granted temporarily for certain period of time, but indefinitely. — Danny B. 04:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support skilled user--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done granted till 20 March 2016. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

New OTRS members. --Krd 14:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrapping up our activity cleanup pretty soon, hopefully. Thanks! --Rjd0060 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Done --Vituzzu (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thx. --Krd 18:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Done --M/ (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thx. --Krd 08:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Stryn (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)