Talk:Steward requests/Global permissions/2017

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 on 01 January 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Status of SNOW

Meta:Snowball prohibits early closures on proposals, and it makes sense for most stuff, specially for those discussion with project-wide impact, such as configuration changes. But I wonder if we'd like to exempt that from this page. There are obvious proposals that ain't going to pass and it makes little sense to keep those opened when the discussion impacts not the entire site but mainly one user and there's no chance that they'll succeed. Comments welcome. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 16:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember past discussions where someone argued META:SNOW does not apply to steward pages. There are at least a handful examples of early closures in the archives. --Vogone (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Meta:Snowball has never made sense. The initial discussions that created it clearly suggested that the issue is when obviously successful discussions are closed early. Meta-Wiki is a community of people mainly focused elsewhere, so if you closed discussions which seemed to be successful early then you might miss out on some valuable opinions as to why it shouldn't happen. There has never been any indication that it applies to obviously unsuccessful proposals, which I feel should still be able to be closed early to avoid unnecessary discussion and wasting everyone's time. Here, it also respects the dignity of the candidate by not subjecting them to repeated attacks or criticism. I don't think that snowball closures should be regularly used anywhere; if there are supporting votes for a proposal, then it probably deserves to stay open. But we can use common sense with that and respond to any unreasonable uses as they appear. So, long comment, all to say that I think snow closes for obviously unsuccessful requests should be allowed here and that there isn't a reason why they shouldn't be in policy. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think "subjecting them to repeated attacks or criticism" is an argument, since withdrawals have never been forbidden. Also, nobody forces people to add their {{o}} Why not?--~~~~ to requests where the outcome is already clear. This is also why I personally would never close a request early, it can be part of a learning process to recognise at which point withdrawal makes sense, why should we play "nanny"? Of course, this does not apply to troll requests submitted by vandals or similar. --Vogone (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
It's part of it. Quite often, the pile-on opposes do not add any value. Also note that I specifically disagree with playing "nanny" too often, but some cases are quite obvious. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree some cases could use early closures. I also agree that users should refrain from pile-on opposes. This way, requests can stay open and even "good-to-know" facts can be brought up by users like in the current [1]. --MF-W 04:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Can a policy in the Meta: namespace apply to pages that deal with global rights? --Rschen7754 22:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

how can i use proxy?

hi, in my country some wikis were blocked and i must use proxy software (like freegate) to help wiki. for example see this page. Some days ago when i wanted to use freegate software (for accessing upper link), wiki didn't let me leave my comment! and wiki asked me to share my problem with some admins. whats ur opinion for free vpn?700ali (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)