Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Steward requests/Global/Archives/2009

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 15 years ago by NonvocalScream in topic Yes template
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Requests for global IP block exemption

Latest comment: 15 years ago 10 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago 6 comments3 people in discussion

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)

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /