Talk:Steward requests/Global/Archives/2009
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)
- I agree. The current rollback policy fits this well. Angela 01:07, 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)
- 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)
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 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 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)