Talk:Steward requests/Global permissions/2011

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Question

I would like to ask if it makes sense to apply for a global rollbacker status exclusively in order to speed up counter-vandalism work on one project, where the local flag is not enabled yet, having and using local rollbacker rights in some other projects? In other words, is such practice accepted here or cross-wiki experience is required? Thanks. --Microcell 12:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • This practice is not accepted here. Did you talked about uk-wiki? If my suggestion is true, as for me, will be better ask the local community for creating the local 'rollbacker' flag. JenVan (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that is better. I don't think a GR request is justified just for one wiki. –BruTe talk 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Transclusions

Hi, folks,

I suggest that all requests for global rollback and global sysop permissions are processed in a specific page for that, which must be transcluded at Steward requests/Global permissions, as it occurs to RfA. Such requests usually take a considerable time, cointaning relevant or prolonged discussions (mainly gs). So, preserving these history pages could be interesting.

Regards, Ruy Pugliesi 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a need. As it is, these requests are very simple to set up, and I really don't see a good reason to change them. But, if people really need something to spend their time doing, go ahead. It would make it easier to find some drama, like on that recent request for gr where the person removed his request then replaced it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Personally, I think these requests for gs are even more complex than simple RfAs on meta. Howewer, if there are no objections, I could spend my time doing it, as you said. Ruy Pugliesi 18:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, i have same opinion Ajraddatz have when he says that "As it is, these requests are very simple to set up, and I really don't see a good reason to change them." And there are no real reason to change it. Some usernames requests stay in the page for months, time is not a problem here. Béria Lima msg 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
For me, preserving the history pages is a real good reason to change it, since these requests take often one or two weeks long and are more relevant than RfA. If RfAs are archived in this way, there's no reason to not do the same with gr/gs. Furthermore, as Ajraddatz said above, it would make it easier to find some information needed, as specific diffs. Ruy Pugliesi 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

TBloeminks request

  • Likely none. I've been around for years and have personally never seen a "back-door deal" ever take place. fr33kman 15:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • So what's the explanation then? Seb az86556 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Instead of not assuming of good faith, you could ask every single voter about his vote. There are enough explanations for their votes. --WizardOfOz talk 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    Indeed. fr33kman 17:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    Fair enough about the "back door deal"-wording. It was misplaced; however, Trijnstel puts it well below: "The point is that users with probably even more experience didn't get the tool for not enough cw-experience." — that was my point here. I don't see much fairness when one gets massive support, when someone else who has roughly the same experience gets opposed. I cannot imagine what this is based on. And by the way, I don't see "active" and "[blank]" as "enough explanations for their votes" Seb az86556 20:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    It is voters opinion and even if we don´t agree, we must accept it. I´m also not happy with his x-wiki edits, but it seems that the most of others are. If there is consensus to give him this GR, so we have to give him the right. IMO there is no need to explain a support vote, but a oppose vote. This just because of other supporters to give them a possibility to change their vote if there is realy something "wrong" with users behavior that others don´t know. Sorry for transfering your comment here, but request page should only be used for requests and not discussion.I have left a note there. --WizardOfOz talk 20:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I personally am supporting because I now agree with DerHexer's arguments on the last requests. GR isn't a big deal, and we shouldn't be withholding it from someone who would obviously use it well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Atm I'm not really sure if he would use it well, see the links I gave... (btw, two times he asked for adminrights on nlwiki and both times he didn't pass) Trijnstel 18:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I can use it well, see my reverts on enwiki, I have proven that I can revert in other languages and please keep in mind that errors are human behaviour. My apologies for that. Also, the requests for adminship aren't anything that can change anything about this, I suppose. Best regards, TBloemink 19:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • (after edit conflict) Could you give me some examples of this experience? Because I only saw things like twelve undo's (link) which you could have done in one edit (and you know that). To me it looks like as you want to do a lot edits. Btw: most of your reverts are on English wiki's where you already have rollback (enwp, simplewp) and my opinion is that you don't have enough cw-experience yet for GR. The RfA's can't change anything no, but it was my reaction on "who would obviously use it well" (it's not that obvious I mean). But don't understand me wrong. I think you do a great job, but granting GR (which is a global right) is just too early for you imo. Kind regards, Trijnstel 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Ok, rollback on English wiki's doesn't count, but it shows that someone has experience with the tool. Also, proving that reverting in other languages is for me enough of voting support for someone. You can't tell that I do not have x-wiki experience because I did revert some edits. It isn't that much, ok, but most are deletion tags, or on the IRC-channel most are logged-in users and languages like Japanese - which I do not understand. On vls.wikipedia, with my undo-action: I actually knew that there was any possibility to do that quicker with less edits, but I did not remember how to do it (just the fact of not using undo on enwiki, simplewiki and nlwiki, that's why). I hope that you can give me a second chance, and let me show that I can handle GR well. With best regards, TBloemink 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
            • The point is that users with probably even more experience didn't get the tool for not enough cw-experience. Also I don't want to have my doubts about a person. Please go further for some while without GR and prove that you can revert vandalism past the language barrier of Dutch and English (which imo you haven't proven yet with those few edits). Oh and you said "most are deletion tags"; those edits are counted in SUL, although not visible in the toolserver cw-edits. Greets, Trijnstel 19:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Ok, if this request fails, I am sure I will continue fighting vandalism x-wiki and get some more experience - TBloemink 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • May I add here the suggestion of a "back door deal" either pro or con is not very ethical. I may remind you that colleague Trijnstel and I have been very close knit colleagues for a rather long time and have very frequent contact on wiki matters and do confer always about cross wiki vandalism and sockpuppetry misuse and more wiki maintenance. So if she were the "canvassing kind" one of the first she should contact surely would have been me. I can assure you she did not as this is not her style at all and contrary to her I think that the candidate will do well with the tools and that is fine. So please keep this voting precedure polite. MoiraMoira 19:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know what's the best choice here, but I've looked at some statistics and all the recently rejected requests were from users with a shorter history and/or much less global and crosswiki edits (except Sarrus), so I think that if you disagree with the choices it could be enough to say that people are giving much importance to editcount; this is just an example to say that I don't think that it's matter of cabal or whatever. Anyway, it's IMHO nice to ask for some consistency in giving the flags, it shouldn't be just a matter of votes here. Nemo 20:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Per User:Romaine his oppose: It was a little late, I'm very sorry for that. Will talk on IRC - TBloemink 06:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Editinterface

Does the Global editinterface permission allow users to edit protected pages or does the right only allow editing of interface pages, because I saw an editinterface user edit the enwiki main page so I assumed this right would allow a user to edit fully protected pages. —Ancient Apparition 07:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, users with editinterface can "[c]hange protection levels and edit protected pages" as they have the protect right globally. See this for more information on the rights the group gets. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, I don't intend to make any interface changes but would it be wise for me to request this right? I'll be using it on the wikis where I'm most active to assist with edit protected requests and Requests for page protection as said wikis don't have this right locally. —Ancient Apparition 08:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not really what the tool was meant for. To be honest I would be uncomfortable with granting a global right as a form of backdoor semi-adminship for enwiki. If you want to handle editprotected requests, you should either wait until the community trusts you with adminship or propose creating a separate local right. Jafeluv 08:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Those proposals go nowhere, I've raised this matter MULTIPLE times and each time the rest of the community start sub-discussions that really don't relate to the primary topic. I've given up on proposing anything at enwiki... —Ancient Apparition 08:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Also I was going to use it to edit certain interface pages, but they aren't coding related changes, just rewording ambiguous, confusing or otherwise poorly worded phrases in some of the system messages. —Ancient Apparition 08:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not what it's for; as Jafeluv said, if you want to be an admin somewhere, request the right locally. Seb az86556 08:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Editing interface pages is not my primary reason for asking, but I do intend to make changes to interface messages where I can and where there are reason requests to do so, my knowledge of javascript is meh but I assure you if I do by some miracle have this right given me I will not abuse it. —Ancient Apparition 09:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't see any place where you'd be able to do that; since your last three unsuccessful requests,[not for editinterface] you still haven't made any contributions outside the Anglophone sphere. I'm simply guessing you are monolingual. I can guarantee you you won't be granted this right to use it on any English language-projects, and it appears you will be unable to discern whether a requested edit elsewhere makes sense. Seb az86556 17:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As a general rule, the purpose of any global right is not to go through the backdoor to be able to do stuff on any one wiki - it is for people who have a use for the tool at a global level. Any request like what you are saying above wouldn't be successful, regardless of the issues with the community on that one wiki. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That's all I wanted to know, thanks. I have sound knowledge of Chinese and I can make basic communication in Italian and French. My knowledge of Japanese is limited, however. Recently i haven't had access to IRC so I haven't been monitoring cross-wiki feeds. —Ancient Apparition 11:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Global rollback

How about making it a little bit more objective? Perhaps a minimum number or small wiki undo's before granting? Or are people okay with the mostly subjective granting we have now? I only ask because people do complain when someone else gets it and they don't (which we never stop). fr33kman 22:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's any evidence that unqualified users are being promoted over more qualified users, I don't think adding this extra layer of bureaucracy is helpful or necessary. Quite happy with how things are now. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I feel a bit like Fr33man and certainly looking ahead. It started as something quite important and quite casual. Few folk even knew about it so few were likely to request the rights. As it grows more and more folk will turn up. Not sure what rules or whatever there should be but the discussion should start at least. --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
What Herby said above is true. In the past, while the rules have not changed, the criteria and standards where higher and I think it worked better. Adding numbers is a bit bureaucratic IMHO but being more exigent in granting global rights wouldn't hurt. I'd love if we could return to the old ways. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Per what Peter said; there's no evidence of a problem right now, so this is a solution looking for a problem. The voting process seems to be pretty good at determining need for the tools, making this extra layer of bureaucracy unneeded. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

5 days

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion is now closed. More than a month has passed since this thread was opened. Comments stopped on August, 18 and no one has opposed the proposal. As such the proposed changes are implemented as follows:
  • Global rollback requests require no less than 5 days of discussion (obvious non-succedding candidacies excluded).
  • Global sysop discussions, per policy, require no less than 2 weeks of discussion as per Global sysops#Appointment and are not affected by this change.
  • There seems to be consensus too (per all those who supported "per") to require steward endorsements in order for a candidacy to succeed. Two users were not convinced by that and was not, also, target of the proposal so I'll abstain from including this requirement for now until a review from a third party can be made.
-- Marco Aurelio 15:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose a rule that requests must remain open for at least 5 days, no matter how obvious the result may seem. Seb az86556 00:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - In the past global rollback request must be kept open for a period of 3 days minimum and must had 3 steward endorsements to get it approved, no matter how many "voters" supported or opposed the candidature. That was the correct procedure IMHO, not this one we use now. I'm sad to see this requests being turned in votes. I do not know why and who changed the past procedure because as far as I can see there was no discussion at all. Notwithstanding looking at the current size of meta and the number of people working here nowadays I'd say that 5 days minimum (for global rollback) is OK. For global sysops 15 days minimum, as per policy. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with dferg (and loads of others) that there must be a minimum voting period, number of partakers and at least 2-3 steward endorsements to be able to pass. I also suggest global sysops must have endorsements from stewards or global sysops. I'd actually normally reopen this RFGR, but this time thinks it'll make larger issues and greater wars than so far fr33kman 15:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above Addihockey10 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed though I see no reason why it should not be seven in common with many other requests? Nothing will get broken for a little longer? --Herby talk thyme 17:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm agree with dferg as he points that he is sad to see these requests being turned into votes. As far as I know, the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work is most influential and stewards should determine whether consensus exists. A discussion period of 5 days for GR looks fine to me. For GS, 1 week or 10 days must be enough time to determine consensus. Ruy Pugliesi 17:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (I know it's easy to say, but... ;-) ) Per above. Trijnstel 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support to five days, but for GR requests, why we need at least 2-3 steward endorsements? If we need endorsement from a particular group of users, then supports from other GRs, and GSes should also work for GR requests. As we accept GSes endorsements for GS requests. So, for GRs we should count other GRs too, and GSes and Stewards. — Tanvir | Talk ] 23:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    Steward endorsements were the practice some time ago (and again, misteriously dissapeared). I passed my request when that system was in place and it's highly benefitial. For example: to avoid canvassed requests like we're used to see. That's why the {{yes}} and {{no}} templates were created. Basically you need to convince those whith hability to put you in that group that you need the tool. -- Dferg ☎ talk 07:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and I agree with Herby. mickit 12:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Email Vaibhav Talk 12:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Some could say it would make this procedure a bit more bureacratic, but waiting a couple of days would make no harm (edits can still be undone without this tool anyway). Some users might be busy in real life and can't access this project every days of the week. "Extending" a little will give time to those users to express their opinion. It also would give us more time to read others' arguments and check closely the user edits before "voting". No matter if somebody gets 50 supports today... if s/he receive a single oppose tomorrow with a good reason to not give the tool, it can't be given, since it is not a vote. So, no reason to rush.” Teles (T @ L C S) 19:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Not seeing a reason not to Support. —Gfoley Four— 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with what dferg said above. I don't mind the input from none-stewards, but the steward input should be more important. Also the five days waiting in general seems to be a good idea. -Barras 07:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    For what it is worth I do agree with Barras/Dferg on steward input. There is a sense in which GS were created to assist stewards with dealing with cross wiki issues so that they were not tied up in vandal fighting when there was other work to do. They are (some of them) the prime cross wiki workers and their opinions are important. --Herby talk thyme 08:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 5 days minimum sounds about right, although I wouldn't oppose making it 7 as we do with RfA and other similar discussions. I have to say I disagree about requiring a certain number of steward endorsements, though. GS/GR are not selected to help stewards, but to help small local communities in vandalism fighting. That is a task also performed by the stewards, but is by no means exclusive to them. The appointment of GR/GS should be decided by the (global/meta) community, not by stewards as a group. If there is consensus after the discussion period to grant the rights, they should IMHO be granted even without any steward endorsements at all. After all, stewards are required by policy not to override consensus. Of course, stewards may be in the best position to evaluate a GR/GS candidate's global contributions and as such their opinion can have a strong influence in the discussion, but in those cases the strength should come from the strength of the argument, not from their position as stewards. I somewhat dislike the implied notion that steward opinions are more valuable per se and should be marked so with the {{yes}}/{{no}} templates even if the user just wants to participate in the discussion as a normal community member. I would very much prefer evaluating comments based on strength of argument, not on the basis of what bits the user making the comment might be holding. Jafeluv 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Support 7 days = 1 week is a quite usual duration, on the other hand we don't want to artificially prolong "obvious requests" ... therefore 5 days should be sufficient. a×pdeHello! 11:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Dferg and fr33kman -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Dferg. Grunny (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support--Ομιλία Sahim 13:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Steward endorsements

Some suggested above that GR/GS requests should have a minimum number of steward endorsements in order to be successful (as apparently has been the case earlier). Is there support for such a requirement, and how many endorsements should be needed? I'm still opposed to the idea as explained above, but will of course accept consensus if others feel that such a requirement would be useful. Jafeluv 14:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO GR is maybe not that big thing, but GS should be handled with care. It's a good idea to have at least one steward supporting such a request, but other GS statements should be taken into consideration as well (they know best about that job ;-) a×pdeHello! 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that at least 3 steward endorsements should be there to the candidate be able to pass. Please do note that we're talking about global flags and I think additional requirements should be there. We evaluate the request, and if you can't convince 3 of us that you need access to those tools then... well you can guess :) I think that our comments should be important. Best regards, -- Marco Aurelio 16:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with dferg. 3 stewards should endorse the request. This is also about global rights and not really many people get here to voice their opinion, so it is more important, that those (who hopefully are already widely trusted by a global community) who are entrusted generally also trust the other people who want or need a global right. Steward endorsements are usually not to hard to get. -Barras 17:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongly opposing having steward endorsements, since I'm a firm believer in user rights not making users "better" than eachother. I'd much prefer us to continue to use the current system of discussion, with ideas being presented on both sides than putting stewards above other users when there is no need or benefit. Canvassing has only been a problem here once or twice, and I seriously am at a loss to see how this would possibly help. Besides, we already have a note saying that people who are active xwiki have more emphasis put on their opinions... so why this? Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note that no one said anyone is better than someone else. It is just the stewards are elected by a much wider base. This page usually gets not that many input. We elect here people for global rights and only very few people comment. I think it should be important what stewards say here. Also, this was the case ages ago and it doesn't actually prohibit other people to comment as well. I don't actually know why it was changed in first place or if it was changed at all and people just forgot about this. -Barras 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If that was how it was a while ago, then I'm glad it's changed. Stewards are users with a few extra rights, and to assume that stewards are the only people in wikiland who can be trusted to vote well on requests for global rights is just ridiculous. I think that it should be important what everyone says, considering that everyone has a different opinion that they can bring to a discussion and all of those opinions are valuable. Also, to even suggest this steward endorsement thing suggests that stewards are more knowledgable than everyone else, which is certainly not true. It also gives stewards greater control over who gets global rights, which in effect makes stewards "better" than other users in this case. Steward's opinions never matter - the only time that you can use your tools is in support of consensus or your own common sense, and I see this as violating that scope (on top of everything else). Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was the system when I passed my GR permissions. And again... nobody is suggesting vetoing other opinions nor that we're better. Those are simply your prejudices and a complete misunderstanding of the proposal. -- Marco Aurelio 08:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, I understand what is being proposed here. However, I am of the opinion that requiring a certain percentage of stewards to support in addition to other users is, in effect, a veto. This isn't a prejudice, this is something that causes all users to not be equal in every sense in a discussion, to which I strongly oppose. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to any stewards endorsements. Nobody should be special. Ruslik 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    Nobody is suggesting being special. You know, assume good faith. For example, bureaucrat endorsements are currently required to be able to pass a RfB at meta currently. I'm a bureaucrat here and I don't feel anything special (and maybe we have a problem if anybody with any flag feels special). It's about improving a system. -- Marco Aurelio 20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    We could improve the system here then by removing bureaucrat endorsements. Why would a user know who makes a good 'crat just because they are one? I've seen many 'crats on many wikis support others for 'cratship and the candidate didn't pass. I could find you examples if you wanted, but there are so many that I really don't think it is needed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    We're discussing about Global permissions, not about local bureaucrat elections which work perfectly fine. I'm sorry but I take global rights seriously thus I'm strongly in favor of additional requirements, seeing how this kind of requests are more and more frequent. But, OK, if there's no consensus we can move away doing productive things. -- Marco Aurelio 08:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with dferg (MA), 3 endorsements make sense. fr33kman 23:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose the idea in its entirety. Steward endorsements should not be a necessary requirement for any global request, in my opinion. I trust those who comment on requests to judge the candidate, whether they're a steward or not. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Vetos

Can/should stewards be able to veto a global right such as GR and GS? fr33kman 23:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering that there isn't even consensus for steward endorsements, definitely no for the veto. Stewards are no more competent than other users, and I also really don't see a need for this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Whilst totally respecting your opinion on the veto (just like I totally respect you personally), I have to say that stewards are (usually) more competent than "other users". Steward is not given out lightly; it takes a global election involving (usually) hundreds of votes to become one. It also takes an enormous amount of admin experience and respect from the majority of the community. Recently I closed a request for GR within hours of it being started because it was never, ever going to pass. We are either trusted or not. fr33kman 23:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Stewards are definitely trusted, but are they more trusted than all other users who aren't stewards? I'm just not a fan of (what I see as) fixing a system that isn't broken by allowing a decision to be made that does not reflect consensus. Unless there is a completely obvious need to have a veto, I'd prefer to keep the power with the community and not a cabal. Steward is currently not a cabal, but as we start to give stewards more community control then it slowly becomes one. Also, this proposal seems out of the steward policy to me - stewards are supposed to respect consensus at all times, and this proposal would have them defining it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"unless there is a completely obvious need to have a veto" greatly implies that such a veto does exist. Yes, you are right in that stewards "should aim to make no decisions" (which I personally find to be a perfect nonsense). I guess I've asked this question because I'm a nice guy who doesn't like to see people "beaten" up on requests for global permissions. I've never been totally smacked whilst asking for permissions (commons is my only failure), but I feel absolutely that no one should have to undergo an RFP where nothing but "opposes" occur. Perhaps there is a learning curve here that should be allowed to occur, but I don't like to see such events happen. fr33kman 23:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Ajraddatz. When someone gets overwhelmed with opposes, I wouldn't want a steward to grant the flag regardless of consensus. However, I understand Fr33kman's concerns and I wouldn't mind a steward 'snowballing' a request that is destined to fail. Do you agree? Mathonius 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I would agree to stewards closing requests that have no chance of passing (this being determined by the first few !votes, not the steward's opinion). Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It is exactly this situation I'm talking about. I am totally opposed to any steward who closes an RfGlobalPerms based on their opinion alone. I am talking about just closing an RFP where the candidate clearly doesn't understand what the flag is for, and is totally unqualified. I'm cool with a "veto" where it happens after the first few (define few if you can ;) ) !votes say a clear "no". I don't think that any person, no matter what their position, should just be able to shut down a global RFP, but I think a steward (or crat) should be able to stop a complete train-wreck of a request early. Thoughts? fr33kman 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No. You can't have a veto; what you can do though is to all agree that you won't take action. Seb az86556 00:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Seb, how's life? I have to say that I think your arguement that we all don't take action is another total nonsense; how would it work?? fr33kman 00:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
To clarify Seb's point, I think the idea is entirely about the "snowball close" concept - closing something early as a no, rather than letting someone get dispirited by a huge wave of "no"s. To be very specific, that works only for the action of least change - i.e. for GR/GS requests, a "no".
James F. (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Not really what I meant. A veto would be: 100 votes in support, one steward says "no", it's denied. "Not taking action" would be: 100 votes in support, but no steward is going to assign the right, and no-one closes the request either, so it stays open indefinitely. Seb az86556 11:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Stewards are required by policy not to override consensus. Of course we don't have the right to veto legitimate global rights requests. What you can do is post an oppose like any other user, and the closing steward will give your concerns the consideration they deserve. Jafeluv 10:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood Seb. In this case, I assume he's talking about a Steward having some privileged information about an individual/account that cannot be discussed openly (e.g. similar to Oversight or CheckUser data), but which means they must over-ride consensus. In that case, yes, I believe that that is justified (but as always, we should take care not to use this except in extreme circumstances, and where agreed by at least two Stewards beforehand).
James F. (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Such a case might present itself. I think that the community should be told there are overriding matters of confidence which must negate the result however; if possible. It's thoughts like this that really make this a worthwhile question(s). fr33kman 01:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
In a case like that, stewards should still not override consensus. I'd say that the appropriate action to take in that case would to be for one steward to say that the user shouldn't have global rollback because of an issue which cannot be disclosed, and then get five or so other, uninvolved stewards to endorse that view. The community could make a pretty good decision after that. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some cofusion as to what is being proposed here - Fr33kman is proposing that stewards be allowed to close requests per WP:SNOW essencially if it is blatantly obvious that it will fail. To that I would agree, though it must be obvious from the first few votes that the request has no chance of passing. If there are supports, then that would not be an appropriate time to snow close it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That's not what "veto" means. A veto means one person can override an indefinite number of votes, like a dictator. Seb az86556 22:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I know this, which is why I originally was opposing this proposal. But Fr33kman clarified what he meant above, and my description of it there is what he intended to propose. I definitely disagree with stewards having a veto/endorsement/what have you. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, veto was actually a poor choice of words. I did mean SNOW closures; me not liking to see anyone take an embarrassing and unnecessary spanking in an election. Now, I actually have worries about what Seb said about all stewards refusing to act on a successful request for a permission. I don't think such a situation should be permitted. If that were ever the case then I feel the stewards must force themselves to do it. fr33kman 01:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I was just pointing out what you guys can already do. No-one's gonna come to your front-door, point a gun at your head, and force you to do anything. Seb az86556 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)