Talk:Steward requests/Global permissions/2012

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 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

A passing thought

Any chance g sysops might get g lock access? I'm getting bored asking for locks on global spammers - no complaints with the service :) & I don't want to be a steward - however it might help out if g lock was a g sysop feature? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The global sysop proposal passed because the global (b)locking features were removed from the pack. And global blocks and locks can't be applied to a determined set of wikis (and global sysops are limited to a certain number of projects), so, sorry, I think it will not and should not be enabled for this group. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough - thanks for the explanation :) --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
You can put it up for discussion on the GS talk, though. It was pretty silly to remove that permission 3 years ago and it's even more so now. GS are not a threat and people should already have realised it (or opted-out to stay in their walled garden). Nemo 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree GS are not a threat. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel all that strongly - I just keep finding spammer accounts that - for me - do not need a steward to deal with. It is not as though I am a gs - of course if access to g lock changed...;) --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Giving global sysops access to global lock would be beneficial IMO, and the minor expansion of the scope to include more xwiki counter-vandalism wouldn't hurt anyone. But, there will always be the people who oppose such changes in the name of preserving complete local control for some of the larger wikis. This would still be well worth proposing. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It would have my support. To me gs should provide a level of backup for stewards. I imagine that most g lock requests are fairly obvious vandal type stuff (& for me the increasing number of global spammers). The very few that are not obvious should be dealt with by stewards still. --Herby talk thyme 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Besides this discussion (I'm against it - I do understand why it could be useful for global sysops, but as global sysops technically don't have admin rights on all projects, we shouldn't give them the ability to global (b)lock them too), @Herbythyme, you know you're not a global sysop, right? Trijnstel 23:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
He does; "It is not as though I am a gs". Beyond that, I don't see what having tools on all wikis has to do with this. Meta admins, who have tools on meta, can edit the spam and title blacklists which affect all wikis. The usefulness of expanding the global (b)locking ability to a group of editors who could use it well far outweighs the inconvenience of a minor modification to their scope to accommodate it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Per Ajraddatz mostly and it is the reason I am so fussy about Meta admin - they get to affect (screw up) globally anyway - certainly - to me - this right might be more widely available in dealing with obvious cross wike issues. I've only ever requested rights when I get fed up asking others to do things for me, this feels like one of those (& I do not wish to be a steward) --Herby talk thyme 10:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Centralauth administration implies access to oversighted usernames (afaik).
I know (I had been one of them for months) gs-es are not evil but their existence go by a sort of agreement: the way to become gs is easier but the access is limited (in comparison to steward access) especially on major wikis. I'm not sure we can change the basic idea of gs group without changing assignment procedure and then I'm not sure it will be possible to set apart the "new" globalsysop group from the old stewards' one. --Vituzzu 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes - no problem, I guess it is one of those things that is easy to talk about and hard to take any further! --Herby talk thyme 13:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if global sysops were able to globally (b)lock, but such a change really needs a lot of input, also from the bigger wikis (with CN probably) and every single GS request needs more input then, election then should be a bit more like the steward elections as those rights really effect all wikis. A fairly big change and I doubt that especially the bigger wikis will agree on this. But feel free to create a voting/comment page like it was when GS was developed. -Barras 13:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd still say that the trouble is worth it. In regards to making the election process more steward-like, global sysops could be confirmed once a year with stewards, but still able to request the rights at any time. This would seem acceptable, especially with the zero-tolerance policy we have to abuse from global sysops. The difference between global sysops and stewards still seems pretty clear to me, although an underlying issue here is that the role of a steward needs to be better defined. Stewards IMO should be more about the user rights and private tools aspect, while global sysops should definitely be about counter-vandalism. Still, though, it shouldn't be to hard to make a practical change like this without worrying too much about how the scope of a different user group is affected. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
To expand on this, I believe that this is a practical idea, and one which could cause great benefit to both the global sysop's ability to combat vandalism and to Wikimedia as a whole. What this will require is a well organized and planned out proposal. If people think that this is a good thing to do, I can start a discussion on the gs talk page where we can nail down the details of this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd vote in favour but I don't have the time to work on it - drop me a note if you do do something and you think I might have missed it :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with this proposal is that you are proposing to give GSs something that even stewards lack. If you do not believe me, you can check yourself: Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/steward. Ruslik 19:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
Yes, this is a big problem with the proposal. We have CentralAuth rights locally, as part of the local steward group. Adding it to the global group will enable GS's to access CentralAuth from any wiki. This needs to be addressed first. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, part of what I was going to propose is that global sysops be given a local group as well with just those rights (especially since meta doesn't need global sysops to have the full package here). Being able to (b)lock people from any wiki has some obvious accountability issues. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
After discussing this with many people, modifying the global sysop scope doesn't seem the best course of action. What would be a good course of action is creating a new group, Global_managers - please discuss there :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Global editinterface

When I have followed the edits made by Merlissimo, it looks like edits made by "Global editinterfaceres" are not autopatrolled. Look here for an example. If they are trusted to edit globally in ns:8, then it is my opinion that we can also trust them to be autopatrolled in all projects. -- Lavallen 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that they do have global access to the MediaWiki namespace, it might be a good thing to keep their edits patrol-able. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to note, I don't object to Trijnstel's decision below Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, I've added the autopatrol right, see here. @all stewards, feel free to revert if you disagree. Trijnstel 19:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a steward, but I disagree. I think we should allow the local users to patrol these edits as usual. If the acting user is locally trusted then he'll have the 'autopatrol' via another group. –Krinkletalk 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Comment It's probably not important, but global rollbackers and global sysops have the autopatrol right as well. Trijnstel 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Rollbackers participate in countervandalism ("patrolling edits"). Although I didn't create it, I can understand why those users would be autopatrolled. Same goes for sysops, who participate in user issues and conflicts. But interface editors imho different in that regard, because the editinterface right only applies to the MediaWiki-interface namespace, whereas 'autopatrol' would make all their edits automatically patrolled, including regular edits on articles (wheares the editinterface right has nothing to do with regular wiki content). –Krinkletalk 21:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
And at least one Steward and one Staff is regularly adding pages Globally, they are also autopatrolled. -- Lavallen 09:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Publicising requests

Just a thought but we link to local Rfxs on recent changes - should the same occur when there are active RfGS and maybe RfGR? I can't see that requests here are less important than local ones? --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't that's absolutely necessary because GS/GR requests are posted in a steward request page which is regularly monitored by stewards. Plus it is reported at IRC. Just posting it for future reference : I also had the thought to had those kind of requests to the watchlist. I personally don't watch the recent changes everyday, so I almost never see bureaucrat requests. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I vote for a sandwich board man yelling "Have we got a deal for Yoooouuu!" ;-). Either that, I actually much prefer internal promotions through a hack to show bits through the Watchlist as done at enWP and enWS, though I ehphasise that is my preference. billinghurst sDrewth 15:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Steward requests/Global permissions

How to become a global steward and administrator? -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 11:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting extra rights shouldn't be your main goal here. Just combat vandalism for quite a while (SWMT) and then you could *start* thinking about it. Trijnsteltalk 17:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
it's as if you're running after a medal rather than a tool. DarkoNeko (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What to do to apply for SWMT? Hi I thought that one of the administrators to do for me. -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 00:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

av.wikipedia.org

Can on this Wikipedia to be the administrator and bureaucrat? There is no administrator and bureaucrat. -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 01:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done
  1. This is not the right place to ask for permissions
  2. Do you know any of Avar language? Do you have any experience in patrolling?
  3. You should stop going on looking for a random hat to wear.
--Vituzzu (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

{{yes}}

Just a thought, but is there really a need to substitute the transclusion of that template with another, depending on who the user is? It occurs in nearly every single request, and it doesn't really matter ultimately, since a general consensus is gauged (and requests mostly lean towards either one way or another). -- Mentifisto 01:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason for it to be steward-only. There is nothing about a steward's vote that makes it automatically better than everyone else's. If steward votes are that much more important, then they should be providing long detailed comments to prove it imo. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
No reason to keep with it as a way to separate stewards than others. We should judge the argument for its content, not for who is arguing (Argument from 'authority'?). Maybe older users than me have a good explanation for why it is used.‴ Teles (T@ L C S) 03:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The rule has been there for years, because in the past (and I saw no discussion to remove it) it was needed at least three steward "yes" votes to be promoted to global rollback group; hence the need to diferenciate. This oldfashined user would like the template to be steward only (or if it's determined that no special template is needed, deleted).
Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Eminently sensible rule, I like shiny things and they're clearly shinier if other people can't use it. </humour> Snowolf How can I help? 21:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have altered the template's documentation to reflect this discussion. I, too, agree that it is silly in light of current practice. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that this change has been made. I've never seen any reason for steward-only voting templates, barring a rule that steward votes count more than mere mortals' votes. Jafeluv (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Then there is no reason to keep two templates for the same thing. I suggest deletion. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. -Barras talk 15:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, but let's just redirect it to template:support so we don't need to concern ourselves with needing to fix links to the yes template in the future. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds also good. Might be easier than deletion. We'd have to subst: the template like millions of times. Redirecting seems more sensible. -Barras talk 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Works for me (editconflict with Mr. Symonds above)Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Imo the {{yes}} template is much better than the support, takes less space, and conveys more directly the message. Deletion of it seems premature. Snowolf How can I help? 20:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I too feel this closure is premature. It's not had much time to get comment. On a global permissions page a stewards opinion does mean more. The global rights page specifically states that users with crosswiki experience will be listened to more for electing new global sysops. fr33kman 14:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No, of course it doesn't. It's consensus-based. For example, a steward who is not necessarily active in global countervandalism (and there are a few active ones who are not) should not have a higher say than a global sysop who is best placed to judge a candidate's abilities. No group should have an exclusive template, and no group should be given extra weight in these global discussions. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it does "Stewards will determine whether consensus exists; when doing so it is likely that the weight given to the input of those involved in cross-wiki work will be most influential." If you don't want a private template (only used on the one page) then fine, but this was essentially a deletion discussion of sorts and was closed far too early. fr33kman 22:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have never been a huge fan of unnecessary bureaucracy, and certainly when I review a SRGP request, I read the comments rather than the fancy templates. If I am alone in this, it would be a helpful practice for others to adopt. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Icons

While we're at it, why on Earth do {{support}} and {{oppose}} omit the icon on certain pages? The edit summary seems to have been that the pages are "not for voting" [1], but I fail to see how displaying a helpful red/green icon next to the comment is considered any more of a vote than the comment without such an icon. "Support" and "Oppose" are visually pretty similar when boldfaced and the coloured icon makes it easier to distinguish supports from opposes especially in longer lists. Jafeluv (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is the point. Certain pages are explicitly discussions where reasoned arguments are required, and counting the number of supporters or opposers is exactly the wrong thing to do. Adding icons on those pages emphasises the wrong thing, and suggests to newcomers that the discussion is actually just a vote. This is especially harmful on requests for new languages (the original exception), because the language committee completely ignores the number of votes — a request with an overwhelming number of support votes (but no arguments in favour) will be rejected if there are arguments against it. —Pathoschild 15:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand, and it's entirely correct to encourage discussion instead of straight voting on those pages. However, I'm not sure that hiding the support/oppose icons is the way to do this. An example: If I come late to a SRGP discussion that I would a priori support, I'm probably more interested in reading what any possible opposers might have to say. The coloured icons make it easier to visually spot any opposes from a long list of comments, and having a way to easily find them actually encourages me to consider the opposing side's arguments and participate constructively in the discussion. Now, this may not be the case in RFNL, where supporting and opposing arguments are in different subsections, but the icons are certainly helpful for me in RFA and SR subpages. Jafeluv (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Pathoschild above is right. I'm in meta for years now at it has not been until recently —sadly— that global right requests —even global ipblock-exempt— has turned into votes. This not happened in the past and any people interested may browse the archives of Steward requests/Global for evidence. Plain "support" and "opposes" ought to be ignored when closing the proposal, only arguments counts. "Support"/"Oppose" is not an argument. Somewhat forcing you to read the entire discussion is not bad; you get all the positions. Having said that, and given that stewards comments no longer have an special weight as it happened in the past —right that misteriously dissapeared from the headings without any community discusion as far as I remember; again look at past archives— hence no longer have special templates; the icons and boldings should be removed to encourage discusion instead of voting; which is all about here. The Meta-Wiki philosophy of not voting on everything is being dismissed and sadly ignored as the time goes by. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove of Global Sysop rights

Where do I ask for the removing of global sysop rights from a user? Do i open a request here or is there another page that i can't find? --Julius1990 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's explained here. -Barras talk 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Julius1990 (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest rewording for closing permission requests

I would think that we would do well to have a slight rewording for requests for rights. It would seem that the current wording does not allow for an early closure for a discussion that has little chance of success. The main provision of the discussion period is to allow for a fulsome discussion and to prevent an early granting of rights. I would suggest that the wording could say

Successful global rollback requests require no fewer less than 5 days of discussion, while global sysop discussions last no fewer less than 2 weeks.

We would always entertain any request by the nominee to have a nomination continue through the whole time rather than be foreshortened. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I believe we had been invoking the snowball clause in the past, but that does contradict with the hard requirement of discussion length. There might be some concerns? (what I don't know) but to me such a change wouldn't hurt. --Bencmq (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Support Restu20 08:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd say, be bold. Trijnsteltalk 21:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You mean fewer, not less. Days and weeks are countable. But yes, sensible change. James F. (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Support jaja, sounds good Vogone (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No problems. -Mh7kJ (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)