Talk:Steward requests/Global

Archiving?

I don't know if Grawp's request should be archived] (perhaps to at least acknowledge the fella that inspired global blocking?) but shouldn't we have an archiving method for housekeeping/record tracking in place? rootology (T) 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Done already.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests for global IP block exemption

We need to discuss this a bit to get the process well understood, I think. (This was raised on stewards-l but talking about it here may make sense?) ... this exemption is quite helpful to someone that wanted to do some serious harm. So I think handing it out probably should take the standard "3 stewards and a short waiting period" process, at least at first. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can have same policy as Global rollbacker .3 steward in favor and it least 3 days.and user should not be blocked in any project .--Mardetanha ^talk 18:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's much simpler than having a different policy for each group. —Pathoschild 19:39:08, 04 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The current rollback policy fits this well. Angela 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's do it that way then. I cribbed the stuff from the Global Rollback about needing a global account etc. and the wording about 3 days. Take a look at Steward_requests/Global#Request_for_global_IP_block_exempt and see what you think. However I wasn't quite sure if we have an explanation of what this exemption IS, so Global IP block exemption (which is analogous to how the rollback section links to Global rollback) remains a redlink. thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been discussion elsewhere as well, Wikimedia_Forum#Global_IP_Block_Exempt_Group for example. I don't see a strong consensus to implement this, so I don't see why we are rushing this forward. I'd suggest that we return to discussion of whether to implement the proposal at all rather than talking about specific aspects of implementation.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We're getting requests. We need to either handle them, or state we are not going to grant this pending discussion. Right now I tagged every request with a "we're not doing this yet". Smithing on the header doesn't mean we are doing it, it means smithing on the header. The discussion you refer to is one I was not aware of when I borught discussion here (after it was raised on stewards-l, I think maybe Thogo wasn't aware of that discussion either). We have a bit of a mess here, this has been moving in fits and starts for a while... maybe meta needs a centralised discussion box or something, because I suspect maybe some of us miss some of the discussion. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's no consensus to do it at this point; the outstanding requests should be marked {{not done}} until there is discussion and consensus.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Which isn't happening. Why exactly is it a bad idea to grant this? What I've read so far is confusing and seems like there is more to say. Please explain further. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note I am not saying it is or isn't a bad idea. (although it looked like we did consensus, rightly or wrongly, at one point)... I am asking why. I think more explanation is needed. Maybe it is. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Upshot? Note Steward requests/Global#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption exists. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Opt-out global sysop

Hello. Comments are welcome on the draft policy for an opt-out version of global administrators at Global sysops/opt-out proposal. Further details are available at that page. Comments, concerns, and anything you care to mention would be appreciated at the talk page. Thank you, NuclearWarfare 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes template

Twice I've been reverted for using  Support. Where does it say that only stewards can use this? NonvocalScream 03:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is long-standing practice for only stewards to use {{yes}} or {{no}}, so I've clarified this in the page header. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I would posit that it is permissable for any editor to use those colouring for comments. It is just silly to say only a steward can add a red or green background to comments. Best, NonvocalScream 03:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have limited time. I concede to your points. NonvocalScream 03:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is purpose to distinguishing stewards from others, given that they are the arbitrators of the process. Just use  Support, or nothing. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Per above, I've withdrawn my objection to the process. NonvocalScream 03:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Global Sysops

Hello everyone. In the first place I would like to know how to put my "resume" to be a candidate of a global sysop. Also I would like this comment to be respected please (not offending anyone). Thank you Melara... 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As you're asking about it here, you already know that the vote is ongoing, I assume. If (and that's a fairly big if) the vote passes, we'll probably set up a page for global permissions alongside this page or as a subpage of it. At the moment, considering the measure is not passed, we're not accepting any applications for the permission at all. Thank you for your interest. Kylu 23:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Kylu.

P.S. if ur a miss or mrs im sorry lol

I'm honoured to be asked to vote, but I don't believe I've done 150 edits on one subject (?) I want wikipedia to be the best it can be, and I'm not so good at referencing my entries. This disqualifies me as a good editor. I'd better get more familiar with cut and paste and having different pages open etc.Thanks,& Good luck with ongoing efforts.I'll work harder at learning the rules.58.167.205.169 14:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)58.167.205.169 14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Global permissions

I'm thinking we should spawn a new page for "Global permissions" due to the large number of new requests and categories of permissions, and change this one to ... "Global restrictions" maybe? Any comments/ideas? Kylu 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but I suggest Steward requests/Global sysop (Link SRGS),Steward requests/Global rollback (Link SRGR), Steward requests/Global block (Link SRGB) ecc :-) It's my opinion :-))) --.snoopy. ✉ 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a separate page for global permissions would be a good idea, but I doubt we need pages for each permission. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Juliancolton -- as well, we should start using transcluded subpages, I think.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. Having discussion subpages for adminship requests and not global sysop requests is just bizarre. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's only true for Meta adminship requests. SRP adminship requests are still all on one page. But yes, having subpages is a good idea. Sukida 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

An alternative is to hold elections on a separate page, then leave a request on this page when there's an actual request. This mirrors the way we handle local permissions, and would let people watch elections or requests separately. —Pathoschild 18:31:53, 08 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually I think that we need them for the "global sysops" ones. I do not see a need to create a subpage to request a gblock/lock, that's a bit impractical IMHO. Perhaps we should use Global sysops/Requests/USER as it happens on commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests? Once the discussion is finished if successful, the user post a request as it happens on Requests for permissions. Just my two cents.

— Dferg (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Subpages for each rights request sound very much like unneeded bureaucracy to me. And if you have a request on a non-transcluded subpage first, probably many people just won't notice it. --MF-W 18:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Either way, I've split global permissions to Steward requests/Global permissions, since this page was getting too long to navigate easily and there seem to be no objections. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wonder whether that will keep up when global sysop isn't all that new anymore. I'm not saying that I disagree here, but in general I think we should keep the number of different request pages to a minimum. For what it's worth, I like Pathos' idea of having separate election pages and using SRG to close elections. --Erwin 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow... at this rate, I might start thinking people take my suggestions seriously or something! o.o;; Kylu 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking named accounts

The instructions say "Only IP addresses can be globally blocked at this moment" [1], however this venue seems to now accept named accounts for blocking (where stewards apparently use their local rights to individually block accounts on other wikis).

One recent request [2] led to an erroneous block on en.wiki [3] contrary to en.wiki global rights policy. It is probably a good idea to add a reminder to review the local global rights policy before taking action on named accounts. Respectfully, –xeno (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)