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 led to an erroneous block on en.wiki [2] 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)