Talk:Steward requests/Global permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for discussions related to the Steward requests/Global permissions page.

  Please remember to:

  For older conversations you can see the archive index.

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg

SNOW closures[edit]

I know this has been brought up before, but what are thoughts on allowing early closures of requests that are obviously going to fail after a few days (say 3)? I know Meta:Snowball says no SNOW closures are allowed, but the page is poorly written and obviously talking against SNOW-closing proposals as successful rather than the opposite. We often get requests for global rollback and global renamer that clearly aren't going to pass, and this would allow the "clutter" to be removed a bit faster. This could be implemented with a quick line at the top of the page saying: "Requests that have no support after three days may be closed early at the discretion of a neutral steward." – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully support this, there are just way too much spammy requests at the moment. Ajraddatz's proposal would greatly help this. XenrøsE 02:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please. We get lots of users who pile-on on some requests and it could demotivate users. There are cases where 3 or 4 opposes is enough to show there's no consensus. No need to keep those requests open. Matiia (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with what Matiia said - keeping requests that are obviously not going to pass can demotivate users and just adds clutter to the page. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 04:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Support, I have sometimes closed them early using common sense rather than following what Meta:Snowball says. No sense to let requests be open until the end if there are just oppose votes. Stryn (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I also did so around two or three times. Matiia (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that this gets discussed and updated at the Meta:Snowball policy which has been relatively stable for a long time; I'm not opposed to allowing SNOW closures for overwhelming declines of some things in general. — xaosflux Talk 14:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
There may be the need for a broader conversation on this; I was mainly concerned about the application here. That said, I went and looked through the archives, and this seems to suggest that consensus already exists for early closures of obviously unsuccessful requests here, unless there was a later discussion to the contrary that someone can find. I would propose that my wording above be amended to "Requests that have no support may be closed early at the discretion of a neutral steward" to remove the three-day requirement too. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought I read something else about this, and yes, I was correct. There is Talk:Steward_requests/Global permissions/2012#Suggest rewording for closing permission requests and it was even implemented, but it seems nobody has it into account. Matiia (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I could have sworn there was some big fuss about SNOW closures a while ago, though of course that could have been any of the eight years I've been active here. Unless there are objections I'd say we are clear to start implementing this agreed-upon practice. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2016-07#Allow some kinds of snowball close? Matiia (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Support overdue. --Rschen7754 02:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I dislike early closures very much and prefer if applicants recognise themselves that their request has no chance to pass at that moment. Allowing SNOW closures removes this possibility and does no good besides speeding up archiving for just a few days. "Spammy requests" can just as well be ignored. There is nobody forcing you to oppose requests which are obviously going to fail, anyway. That being said, I am opposed to this proposal. --Vogone (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a response to this that you probably won't like, but might sway others. The spammy requests actively disengage people from commenting. I check my meta watchlist once or twice a day (or sometimes 20 times), and always check the SRGP page if I see it has new edits. However, when there are constant spammy requests that obviously won't pass but stay for days or weeks, I just assume that those requests are what people are voting on. It's caused me to miss voting on some requests at times when I'm not active, and causes me to delay voting on requests when I am. By removing requests that are obviously going to fail, you leave changes that likely signify a new serious request rather than yet another failing global renamer request that will be open for the next two weeks and drawing sporadic opposes. Clearing the clutter requests helps voters like me, even if you don't buy into the argument that it saves the candidate some dignity. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I could argue now that the automatic edit summary does indicate what people are actually voting on but I do see that it increases the chance to miss new requests if you don't open SRGP at least once in a week. However, the solution to this would be to introduce a SRGP request counter on the watchlist like it exists on other wikis for RFAs, I suppose. --Vogone (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Not opposed to SNOW obviously and undoubtedly failing requests after a day or two; for not-so-clear cases and obviously succeeding requests they should run for the whole time. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Support, Linedwell [talk] 05:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text by MarcoAurelio (withdrawn)[edit]

Proposed text by Alex Shih[edit]

The following discussion is closed: So ordered.

Per above:

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)

MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


Please be sure to update the Meta: policy to reflect any new changes being introduced. — xaosflux Talk 15:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we are discussing the metawiki (Meta namespace) policy but rather how to deal with requests on SRGP specifically. This discussion will not affect the policy. --Vogone (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Vogone is right. This is just for SRGP. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I added a note to Meta:Snowball that is applies to Meta-Wiki matters, not necessarily stewardly issues such as this. — xaosflux Talk 19:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I removed the note as it looks wrong to me. The page, as explained here already, is about closing requests that seem to succeed to early; nothing of it contradicts the fact that on this page some requests might be closed early because they will likely fail. --MF-W 23:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: OK so I'm really lost - (1) Are you suggesting this MetaWiki policy should apply to steward business? (2) Snowball can be seen in 2 ways - towards support something that gets bigger and bigger like a ball gather snow, the other (more common) is that something doesn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" - towards obvious failure. — xaosflux Talk 11:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The Meta:Snowball policy does apply to all Meta-Wiki business. No doubt stewards' matters are Meta-Wiki businness as well. What we did here should be understood as to add an exception for requests handled in this page in the sense to allow early closures of requests that are obviously not going to pass only. If we want to amend Snowball to allow this kind of closures sitewide (which I'd not object fwiw), discussion should happen on the relevant place. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
By the way, could an uninvolved editor/administrator/steward implement the new wording? As the proposed change only applies to SRGP, I am not sure if a clearer consensus is necessary ... Alex Shih (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not involved but did it anyway. --MF-W 23:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I meant un-involved, silly me, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably we also needs something similar in Meta:Requests for adminship: see here and here.--GZWDer (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree. Recurring to IAR too frequently to handle cases like these means that maybe some of our rules should be amended. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)