Talk:Global sysops/2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ajraddatz in topic Definition of "active"


I really think we should add a policy section to this page describing what exactly is considered acceptable use of GS tools. "Antivandalism and routine maintenance" is really vague and the latter part could be interpreted to mean all sorts of maintenance tasks that are clearly out of scope for GS. What I would like to see is clear wording that it's not ok to use the rights in home wikis, that non-urgent stuff should be left to local sysops if they are available, and that the rights should be used only in cases of obvious vandalism, spam and other clearly inappropriate edits. Any thoughts? Jafeluv 00:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Could you come up with something as a draft proposal? NW (Talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll put together something if people feel this is a good idea. Jafeluv 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. Should've been here from the start; some folks are meddling where they have no business at all. Seb az86556 00:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
IMHO global sysops are compareable to stewards (= global bureaucrats), whenever there's no bureaucrat on a small project or not at hand, they help out.
Same with us, whenever there's no sysop on a small project or not at hand, we'll help out:
  • Reverting obvious vandalism (at least if we're able to read it ;-) and block obvious vandalists.
  • Fullfill "predecided" deletion requests (i.e. some local user shows credibly that they already came to the conclusion to delete some page/file/whatever ...)
  • Fix broken wikilinks/filelinks on protected pages.
  • Ehm ... whatever is needed else ;-)
Regards axpdeHello! 06:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: We still need an option for local users on small projects to get to know about us and that we're able to help out when there's no local sysop available! axpdeHello! 06:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This is stuff any regular user can do, you don't need to be GL for that. And no, you are not the equivalent of a local sysop; you have absolutely no say with regards to content-decisions. So it's not "whatever" else is needed. Seb az86556 06:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you might have not understood what I wrote: I didn't say we're the equivalent to a local sysop, I said we're the equivalent to a global bureaucrat (aka "steward")! And I explicitly said "local user shows credibly that they already came to the conclusion to delete", no content decision just execution. axpdeHello! 09:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the general sentiment you are displaying Axpde, global sysops will, in the absence of admins for every single wiki, have to rely sometimes upon a native speaker of the wiki with regards to deleting pages that are none controversial deletions; perhaps with a note left somewhere locally that the decision was taken based upon local consensus. Stewards have relied on opinions of local users before, global sysops would need to do likewise. Seb, I think it is a bad precedent to state that a global sysop has "absolutely no say with regards to content-decisions". Surely we have the same "rights" as any other editor does, global sysop or not. Machine translation can help all users of WMF wikis regardless of their flags, however where there is any doubt, a second or third opinion must be sought, especially in deleting pages. I think one area where we can all help out in the encouragement of respected, local users being granted admin status. angwiki is one example where a global sysop encouraged the local community in getting their "own" admin, who is now doing a fine job. fr33kman 12:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No, no, no. You only have a say in content as a regular user who cannot delete anything. If you want to get involved in the execution of content-based deletions, apply for local adminship. Moreover, you are explicitly forbidden from using your tools on a project where you are an editor. This is not a deal for getting adminship through the backdoor. Seb az86556 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe there was even a hint of my saying that it's a method of backdoor access to local adminship. If an editor of a small wiki with no active admins asks for a page to be deleted after it's been discussed locally, I see no issue with doing so. It doesn't mean you are getting involved with content as a global sysop to do so, in my opinion. Ideally I think it makes sense to encourage the creation of local admins from the said users; angwiki being a perfect example. fr33kman 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO, global sysops are supposed to be an adjunct to the stewards, in that until they existed, only stewards could take care of the speedies, the deletions, the blocking, etc. on projects with no sysops, or with with no sysops active. With the advent of global sysops, there are now people who can handle cross-wiki spam page removals on wikis for which there are no local (or at least no active local) sysops. Where there are active local sysops, global sysops should do nothing, outside of perhaps reverting cross-wiki vandalism/spam if they are following the trail of a vandal across a bunch of projects. And when I say active, unless it is a copyvio or other urgent matter, I mean active in the past X weeks/months, and not just not available in 5 minutes. Local projects must have their policies be respected, and for regular work in a project, local sysopship is needed. -- Avi 17:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If a project requires more than that, they should be encouraged to elect local sysops among their active users, although it's understandable that not everyone who frequents a cafeteria wants to be the one mopping the floor. And nothing stops cross-wiki people from requesting temporary local flags -- I think Hercule worked as a local sysop at acewiki for a while even though he doesn't speak Acehnese, to take care of technical tasks that would be out of scope for GS. In that case it would be the local project that makes the decision of whether they want that person's help or not, instead of it being imposed on them from Meta. Jafeluv 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, Avi and Jafeluv have it right; unfortunately, it appears there are some who don't, and as more and more are made GL, there will be more to run amok. That's why these explicit rules are a great idea. Seb az86556 10:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think global sysops have done a great job so far, and I know that when there have been times where a questionable action has been taken, the global sysops involved have been asked to explain themselves. There is no one who can edit or make an action that hides it from everyone, someone is always able to see and that's a very good thing. fr33kman 12:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


  1. Strike "routine maintenance" — I don't even know why that is in here; I cannot imagine anything that is so absolutely urgent that someone from the outside needs to interfere. The whole deal should be limited to vandalism only.
    I'm not agree with you on that point. Global sysops should make more than urgent tasks on projects with no active sysops. If they don't, who is going to perform requested deletions, hide copyvios or simply do community requests ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Then these should be explicitly spelled out in a list as Jafeluv suggested with this thread; as it stands, everyone just decides in some la-de-da-fashion "oh, well, I'd say that's allowed, so I'll just do it...". It a mess. Seb az86556 14:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, I totaly agree with you two on that point. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    There is scope for routine maintenance in GS, imo, so I also agree. fr33kman 12:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. No actions on one's home wiki; this is not a backdoor for getting sysopship.
  3. Contact local active sysops before taking "mass-action", like NUKE. Seb az86556 00:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    I think routine maintenance should be in there because sometimes there are things that should be revisiondeleted and there's nobody around. --Bsadowski1 06:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    That's not maintenance, that is included under vandalism. Seb az86556 06:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    Well, then could we have your definition of what's included under vandalism? axpdeHello! 09:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    olway p0q3q7tq[21'hrbv xbpg9 58g]1yt hbjf Seb az86556 10:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    What about an IP creating a page about a real company, with its only content being the name of the company? Let us assume that said project has no admins. Pmlineditor  11:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that whether or not an editor has, or uses, an account should never, ever be the basis for deciding an action. The action should either be allowed or not on its own merits alone. fr33kman 12:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    I think Pmlineditor was referring to a delete-tag I had just placed somewhere :P... Fair enough; in that case, we need to talk about some sort of procedure; maybe place a tag, wait a day for objections, then delete. My basic point in all of this is that I want to provent ad-hoc interference; if after a few days no-one screams foul, then go ahead. I would simply caution against being too trigger-happy, that can stifle any project; after all, most of you (even though you may contribute to "smaller" projects here and there) come from English, French, and whatnot, where it's OK to simply be a hard-ass. Unless it is obvious vandalism or slurs, "hard-assism" isn't the right method here. Seb az86556 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. Speaking as an admin of a small wiki (well, medium sized I guess) I think that it's generally fine for a global sysop or steward (and any GS rules will have to apply to stewards acting as "global sysops" also) to delete blatant vandalism even if a wiki has active local sysops especially in cases of BLP vios etc. In my opinion it's about what needs doing, not who does it. I've never had an issue seeing a steward or GS delete something on simplewiki when it was vandalism and we have a very active wiki. The type of thing I'd object to would be doing normal XFDs, etc. Of course each wiki is different and each will have its own opinions on global sysops acting locally. Perhaps those wikis who are in the scope of GS but wish us to act only upon certain circumstances could be encouraged to make local policies. When doing xwiki checkuser stuff I tend to just follow the vandal/socker and delete as I go along. I think that in general I'm not for explicit policies since I find they tend to hinder more than help, but I'm also not adverse to them if they make sense. What such a policy should never do is make an environment where it actually begins to harm the projects. fr33kman 12:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


Okay, here's a suggestion for the policy section:

Global sysops should never use their tools in projects where they are active community members, unless they also have a local sysop flag on that project. In projects with no sysops at all, and on projects where all locals sysops have been inactive for several months, global sysops are allowed to perform routine maintenance tasks on community request. However, they never decide on content issues but only fulfill the wishes of the local community. In projects with active local sysops, global sysops should only use their tools in cases of clearly inappropriate edits such as vandalism, obvious test pages and nonsense, and crosswiki spamming.

Thoughts? Jafeluv 02:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Works for me.
    (And here's why: I recognize all the above attempts to "help" as well-intended; however, unless there is clear harm in the form of vandalism and cross-wiki spam, projects should not be "helped". Had your parents held your hand and pulled you up from the ground at all times, you would've never learned how to walk; you learned by falling and getting up again by yourself. The only time your parents freaked was when you where near a cliff or too close to a busy street. Children who have been pampered to stay away from icky stuff when they where infants , were told not play in the dirt, and whose mother carried the antiseptic hand-sanitizer with her 24/7, these children are known to have a weak immune-system, and will be prone to illness later in life. For wikipedias it means that you clear out harmful vandalism but let things like dead redirects be; let crappy pages be; let broken templates be; let them rot until someone with the adequate interest and knowledge comes along to fix them. Let that someone have the satisfaction of having accomplished something on their own, without big daddy.) Seb az86556 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems badly worded to me. It suggests GS may not delete vandalism at all without community permission if there is one active person in the project, which can't be the intent. What if he disallows GS to delete vandalism because he likes having vandalism? -- Prince Kassad 11:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we should make a difference between wikis with no active sysops and wikis with active sysops about the tasks of routine maintenance. If a wiki with local active sysops don't want the GS to act for routine maintenance, they can opt-out. They are still able to ask ponctual assistance to the Stewards.

I personnaly didn't asked for permanent sysop flag on ace.wikipedia because I had the GS flag and I am not an Aceh locutor. But I can understand this should be forbidden, so I have no objection to the first sentence. The third sentence sounds like a recall of the existing definition : we have our tools « for the purposes of antivandalism and routine maintenance », of course not for editorial questions. Like the Stewards.

--Hercule 12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood the opt-out rule; there is no opt-out for very small wikis, even if there's activity. Seb az86556 14:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Where does it say this? -- Prince Kassad 14:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Only the initial opt-in is automatic. For the opt-out : « Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus. »
If there is a communauty to have a consensus to refuse some GS actions, there is a communauty that can establish a local consensus for the opt-out.
--Hercule 14:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely correct; there is a minimum vote requirement. Thus, very small projects are not allowed to opt out. Seb az86556 22:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No, there isn't any minimum vote requirements, but the wiki has to have a community, and if such a community exists (or if it's just random people coming into the village pump) is up to the steward performing the opt-out-request. Laaknor 22:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


I find it helps in discussions to sometimes draft a page up and see what people think, debate it, change it etc. until it's just right. As such I've put down some thoughts based on known GS policy and proposed changes mentioned here. The draft is here. Feel free to move it, change it talk about it or ignore it. :) fr33kman 07:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

what is "active"

Good. Under "Forbidden, point 3.", define active — that's the crux. Seb az86556 16:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there indeed is the rub. I'd suggest it'd have to be an objective rather than subjective test, perhaps something like:
  • A small wiki has no active admins if there have been no logged actions for X months
  • A small wiki has semi-active admins if there have been fewer than X logged actions in the past X months
  • Anything else is a wiki with active admins.
Perhaps? fr33kman 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the "logged action"-thing is a good indicator; in most cases there will be no logged actions because there were no logged actions required. How about "administrators with no edits"? When an administrator is present and is active editing it means they are available. I don't think an administrator should be forced to take some token logged action ("Let's see, I need a logged action to be counted as 'active' so I guess I'll protect and unprotect some random page for a few seconds...") Seb az86556 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
What about no edits outside userspace? It is quite possible that an admin retired from a wiki, and their only action in the past X months is blanking their userspace or replacing it with {{retired}}. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course, that's what I meant; this userspace-fiddling shouldn't really count then. Seb az86556 18:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I guess that what I'm trying to get some idea of here is the concept of when to act or not act. To me, I see two methods of heading towards a solution here; 1) we come at it from how many things the local admins have/have-not done; or 2) we come at it from how many things needing doing by an admin and have not been done. Somewhere between those two points lays the answer. Of course we need to include in here what happens when a local admin is actively editing but refusing to do admin stuff. ??? :) (just to chuck a wrench in there) fr33kman 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

using GS on wikis where used to have admin+ rights

Another question on this point: "Global sysops must not use their rights to perform admin functions on a wiki where they are active on unless they are also local admins." <-- What if they had been former admins and had voluntarily given up their rights (assuming that the said wikis policy allows resysopping of admins who voluntarily gave up the flag)? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Crystal ball gazing - I could see a situation when I was a global sysop (maybe!) but had ceased to be a Commons sysop. Assuming I had relinquish the tools uncontroversially I can't see it would be an issue but...? (I realise Commons is excluded - just an example) --Herby talk thyme 17:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hm. That question is quite fictional I think; if you are active somewhere and you have an interest in taking care of that wiki, it seems natural to me to be a sysop there. Most of the wikis on the GS-list are longing for someone to give a damn. Show me an example of a wiki on the GS-list where you couldn't at least get 3 months temp-sysop within a week. Seb az86556 18:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you say but there are only so many wiki hours in a day - these days when I take something on something else doesn't get done :(. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herbythyme (talk)
Yaaaa-well, now you're talking about something else; sorry for sounding like a hard-ass, but if one doesn't have the time to invest, one should be neither GS nor local sysop. Seb az86556 18:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I will disagree with you there - there are a stack of admins around that do absolutely nothing. If I am not active I drop rights - I've done it before and will do it again. I can forsee a situation when I will drop one type of work in favour of another - that is reasonable to me. --Herby talk thyme 18:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh; then I apparently misunderstood — that is exactly the approach that I meant. If you don't do anything, you should resign as an admin. What was your point in the first place then? Seb az86556 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It amazes me the lack of my fluency in my native language at times...:)
What I was saying is that I could be a global sysop somewhere where I had had rights before. A better example would be en wb where I was sysop and CU centuries ago and it is listed as my home wiki. The start of the bit I commented on was whether you could use global sysop rights where you no longer had local rights. My point was that I could see possible situations where - if you dropped the rights in good order - it should be possible to so. Hopefully that is better! --Herby talk thyme 09:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok. Yes, I agree then. Seb az86556 17:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The two examples I'm personally looking at are; MSR this sort of thing for places where you were an admin and walked away on good terms and secondly my time at simplewiki where if you were a good admin you've essentially got 1 year to just ask for it back, after that a new election is required. We've also got a lot of stewards/gs' on simplewiki so we're kinda used to how they interact. I'd suggest something like, or between those. Of course, the big thing is that unlike MSR global stewards should not be able to act as an admin on a project where they are active but have never been elected admin. if confused, read the bottom of MSR. fr33kman 00:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The point of the restriction on using global tools in home wikis is that GS is not supposed to be a "back door" to local adminship. If someone is already trusted locally and then just decided to give up the tools it shouldn't be much of a problem I think. I would prefer a wording like "wikis where they are active community members", though, to stress that just actively taking care of vandalism as a GS doesn't mean that somehow that wiki becomes off-limits. That's how the similar restriction is worded in the steward policy, by the way. Jafeluv 16:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My personal suggestion would be to allow GSes to perform both uncontroversial cleanup actions as well as actions during emergencies in wikis where they have been admins before, given up the flag in good faith, and the local policy allows giving these users the sysop flag back when they ask for it without any RfA (and specifying in the policy that they can do normal GS actions in wikis where they are former admins). Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a list of projects which have a policy like that of simplewiki (which basically states that unless you edit at least once in a year, you lose your tools and need a RfA to return). I had made this comment because I had faced a similar situation in SimpleWikt and MediaWiki wiki (where I used to be admin, but gave up my rights voluntarily) when a cross-wiki vandal was vandalizing in the former. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GS noticeboard

I think we may need a noticeboard. I wanted to get help with a load of deletions on small wikis and it occurred to me that it'd be good to have a place where users of small wikis and others would be able to ask for stuff from us. Thoughts? fr33kman 05:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

for future reference >> Meta:Requests for deletion. Seb az86556 05:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that this page can be used as such noticeboard... however if there's a real need Global sysops/Noticeboard could be created. There's also a mailing list that is really abandoned. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing against a separate noticeboard if there's need for one. Most GS-related things can be handled on pages like SRSD and VR, but there might be some cases that don't have a specialized reporting page. That said, we already have an IRC channel and a mailing list nobody seems to use (probably because it's not advertised anywhere on this page). Jafeluv 09:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Rename Stewards' noticeboard to Stewards' and GS' noticeboard—it is only lightly used anyway. Ruslik 09:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Or how about something like "Global noticeboard" or "SWMT noticeboard" or "Crosswiki noticeboard" or something else more general? Cbrown1023 talk 21:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GS have not the same powers as stewards, many notes on the stewards page can't be solved by GS. We need two things:

  1. an own list for requests to GSs (KISS, everyone has to be able to find it with ease)
  2. a tool that automatically indicates whether a GS has sysop rights on that special project or not ... maybe in the way German wikipedia deals with the links to userpages which can by configured to show (A) for admin, (B) for buerocrat, (comA) for commons admin, (S) for steward and so on ...

Regards axpdeHello! 23:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Axpde, I have developed such a tool some months ago. It may be useful to you : see there -- Quentinv57 (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Should GSes have previous admin experience on content wikis?

Well, I think that this is a proposal that we have all been avoiding, and now seems an appropriate time to start this up. Basically, should content wiki admin experience be a prerequisite for global adminship? I personally say no, since a global sysop should not be doing the same things as a local admin anyways. The "roles" are completely different, and are hardly comparable - in fact, the only similarity is that both happen to involve sysop tools. Local admins should be active, dedicated members of a community who function well in it. Global sysops should be people who are willing to spend time doing boring, repetitive work that nobody else wants to do, getting next to no recognition for it. See the difference yet? Plus, there are some of us (such as myself) that are way more interested in crosswiki work than any local wiki, for many reasons. Mine is that there is far less drama crosswiki, and you can usually avoid what drama there is.

I would also love to have the global sysops group renamed to something that is actually appropriate - some name which actually reflects the role, which "global sysop" certainly does not. But, I really can't think of a good replacement... "small wiki admin" doesn't cut it ;-)

Anyways, please discuss. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This has come up before, and I think it's clear that content wiki adminship is not a requirement for global sysops. Jafeluv 00:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not; I've said this in both the past and the current discussion. Seb az86556 01:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Anyway it should not be a must. But I understand people opposing for this reason : without previous sysop experience you can't really judge how the GS tools will be used. I mean that the condition should not be a requirement to be eligible for GS, but that such oppositions should be taken into consideration. I think that the case of Ajraddatz is there an exception : he is sysop at wikia for a long time and has shown his experience with tools on a WMF project. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Any global sysop should have admin experience on some decent sized wiki before. Not just because to have seen the "magic buttons" before. As a global sysop one has to make decisions beyond knowledge, some times one can't even read the text that's about to be deleted! Although I've been commons admin before and I'm global admin for almost a year, I still hesitate when deleting vandalism. My problem: What if I was wrong? On many small wikis there's no corrective by an active community. That's why I think every admin should have experience with deletions monitored by an active community. Hope I was understandable ;-) axpdeHello! 14:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    P.S.: I don't like "global sysop" for we are no "system operators", I'd prefer "global administrator"! axpdeHello! 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    But even deleting as a global sysop is very different from a local admin. A local admin will delete pages that break policies - a global sysop will only delete vandalism. If there is any question of whether or not the page is vandalism, a gs shouldn't delete it. So therefor, should the candidates ability not be judged on how they've tagged pages for deletion on small wikis, and used !delete, etc? And if there isn't any way to check either of those, let's make a way. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    Also, you say that there is no community to correct you, and you are kinda right - perhaps it would be good if we developed some sort of toolserver thingy that could allow for the monitoring and better recording of globally flagged user's actions? Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    This is a good idea actually. It would also serve to measure the activity of individual global sysops. -- Prince Kassad 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    There is a tool to monitor cross-wiki log actions: [1]. Jafeluv 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    It would be nicer to have a better-designed one I guess, with a more comprehensive interface (recent logs, less space between things, etc) and one that could measure deleted contribs and stuff globally (not sure if this has been done or not) Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    axpde, your answer either shows you are in breach of policy or you are projecting your own insecurity onto other potential candidates; the latter case can simply be dismissed: just because you are dealing with issues (hesitating, insecurity) does not mean everybody else does. The former shows that you are getting yourself involved in content issues, which means you are acting beyond the scope of what you have been given permission to do. By definition, you are not allowed to deal with anything that could possibly or remotely trigger "what if I am wrong?" — vandalism is clearly visible and always obvious. Seb az86556 22:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    Vandalism is not always obvious. Crude graffiti is obvious but, unfortunately, some quite persistent vandals are a little subtler than that. Yes, global sysops should only act when they are sure of what they are dealing with, and this means they cannot catch all types of vandalism. ~ Ningauble 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    And if it isn't obvious, a GS shouldn't be dealing with it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's official: it's required; you should write this into the rules. Seb az86556 14:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How did you come to this conclusion, or are you being sarcastic? Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see that my RfGS was now closed. I see what you mean, and since there is some magical consensus that a GS must have admin experience on a WMF wiki, it should be added as a rule. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, oops; decision revised. Seb az86556 20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Flood/bot flag

Hello everyone, a few minutes ago I finished deleting ~120 replaced images on a small wiki, and in doing so considerably spammed their RC. I think that this has been discussed before, but has anyone considered allowing global sysops to add/remove themselves from the bot group on local wikis (since flood flag is not globally used), or at the very least be able to request temporary bot flag from stewards? I know that transparency is a desirable goal, which is why I'd prefer the former (that way, the community could still see that the global sysop has taken an action since there is an entry in the local rights log). Anyways, this isn't a big deal, but giving global sysops this ability might be a good thing for cases like what I just did. It should also be noted that global sysops can do this already with reverts (markbotedits, as can GR), so it makes sense to also be able to hide delete actions when lots of them need to be taken. Please discuss. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry but I do not agree with giving global sysops this capacity. Isn't possible via GlobalGroupMembership anyway. Better to request a bot flag from stewards so it can be controlled. And, with all due respect mass deletions is a thing that global sysops should not be doing very often... Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    If you can't trust global sysops to use it correctly, then I think that there might be a larger issue here... but regardless, I was under the impression that global sysops should never have their edits marked as bot - I don't care whether it is done by the global sysops themselves, or by stewards, but imo it would be a good thing to be able to do in the many cases in which a global sysop will be deleting lots of pages. What do you mean that mass deletions isn't something that we would do often? We quite often encounter wikis in which the speedy deletion category hasn't been cleared out for quite some time and has many items in it... Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • However, global sysops are doing mass deletions as well. In fact I had more mass deletions to do as a global sysop than as a local sysop. But I agree with Dferg that giving GS the ability to add flood flag to themselves locally is not a good idea, first for transparency, then because the status does not exist on every project and creating a global status for that is a bit exaggerated. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As GS we already got apihighlimits, noratelimit and markbotedits, but we still are humans and no bots. No human action should be cloaked as an automated process (which it isn't)! axpdeHello! 08:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a bad idea to me. Anything a GS does involving sysop tools needs to be visible to the local community, and subject to review by the local sysops, and this idea makes that a little harder. Courcelles 12:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As a global sysop I have no issues with us doing mass deletes but as a steward I think that global sysops should ask for flood when needed. There're usually stewards around on IRC. fr33kman 03:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Temporary global sysop?

Hi all. I noticed RobH in the list of global sysops. RobH (a staff member) promoted himself to global sysop on March 6, 2010 for the reason of "because im root". Therefore it looked temporary. His SUL and crosswikicontribs doesn't show any crosswiki vandalfighting. I would vote for removing the global sysopflag of RobH, but of course I would like to know the opinion of others. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel 21:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Support, he doesn't need it either. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't care. And perhaps he doesn't even remember to be in that group, have you asked him first? Nemo 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
@Nemo - I informed him on his talk page and via email. Trijnstel 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I had forgotten I had it. I went ahead and pulled it off myself, so I am no longer a global sysop. (I needed it for some test way back when and neglected to remove it.) Do note that my global sysadmin flag lets me do this stuff whenever, so its kind of symbolic (I should have recalled to remove it afterwards.) --RobH 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see.   Problem solved. ;-) Thanks for replying so quick here btw. Trijnstel 22:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, he hasn't applied for that flag, he doesn't need that flag, and he doesn't make use of it. Fott domett! axpdeHello! 21:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That staff members are special users. As soon as they use their account only for staff actions I consider they can grant any right they need.
--Hercule 07:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey, all. Is there any problem by using "markbotedits" on a small wiki? I know that the GS actions should be transparent to the local community, but sometimes a vandal floods the recent changes by creating/editing lots of pages (sometimes it appears that the intention is not vandalize a page, but vandalize the recent changes) and this permission would be suitable in this cases. Just to make sure, is it ok to use it? (call me a newbie, but I discovered how to use 'markbotedits' last week). ” Teles (Talk @ C S) 20:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, considering that the right is even in the global rollback group. It doesn't hide deletions or blocks, so I'd say that enough transparency already exists in the logs. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Is there any rule on when to use the history surpression function? I've been wondering, because I've used it in the past for hiding spam links, but I wasn't sure if that is in accordance with the policy. -- Prince Kassad 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is absolutely a need to hide spam links... Just reverting it is fine. Personally, I prefer not using show/hide on small wikis, except if there is a really aggressive message and there are no local sysops. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the times to use it would be purely disruptive material, grossly insulting etc., and in cases where oversight will be needed to semi-hide it until and OS/steward can attend. fr33kman 03:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I'm confused. Why are we hiding vandalism, but not link spam? If someone were to be flipping through a page's history, I personally think that it would be better for them to find "obama is black LOL" than a link to some pornographic site - or, ideally, they wouldn't need to find both. To put it plainly, I cannot think of any reason why we should be hiding vandalism but not spam. Spam is the most potentially damaging of the two - someone accidentally clicking a spam link can get spyware/malware/viruses. The worst thing that could happen to someone viewing vandalism is feinting over the use of some words. It just seems so obvious to me which one of these we should and should not be hiding... but please, someone give me some good reason why it should be the other way around. As I said, I'm confused :P Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We should look at local wiki policies such as English Wikipedia. --Bsadowski1 03:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't personally say linkspam is not a good candidate, just that I don't think it's been done like that so far. fr33kman 03:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
To clarify my position; I agree with Brian, we should only take actions that are commonly done on other wikis. It doesn't really make sense to have different GS guideline than a local one. However, I still really don't understand why we don't hide link spam - it seems like one of those things that nobody did to begin with, and now nobody does it for no real reason :P Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO we only need to hide versions with legal issues, i.e. insults and worse. And maybe copyright violations ... axpdeHello! 06:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I join ?


I’m an old active users on several projects (my SUL). I’m already sysop on five of them (brwikisource, sourceswiki, frwikisource, commonswiki, frwiki) and I’m active on others “small” projets (mainly the breton projects and the wikisources).

I’ve (nearly) never done countervandalism. But from time to time, I ask to a steward or global sysop to do some clean up. Today, Laaknor give me temporay adminship (for 12 minut!) on brwiktionary to do some deletion.

The question is : is “global sysop” a group for me or not ? (or should I ask for admin rights on every projects wich will be kind of… difficult and boring)

VIGNERON * discut. 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that you could request global sysop rights. I think it's a big change you'll be promoted to that user group. Good luck! Trijnstel 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Trijnstel that you should run. I think you more than qualify. fr33kman 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Likewise agree (a bit late). We could always use more global sysops. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Geography lesson

I would like draw attention to the fact that North America exists. chy:, cr:, ik:, iu:, chr: Seb az86556 13:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get your point. What North America has to do with those wikis?” Teles (Talk @ C S) 13:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This was a reminder for Global sysops. They apparently do not know it exists. Seb az86556 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  Support Seb az86556 for global sysop. Jafeluv 14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Jafeluv. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion time

I recently edited the page to remove "normally after two weeks", to reflect the apparent current practice -- the majority of recent GS requests have been closed much faster than the specified two weeks. As that change has been opposed, however, I've reverted it. My impression was that the wording was a descriptive statement and not a definitive minimum timeframe, but that may not have been its original intention. If the intention is to have the two week time limit as an absolute minimum timeframe, I suggest changing the wording to make that point clearer: "The request will be approved by a steward if there is a consensus for the user to become a global sysop after a period of discussion of no less than two weeks". Thoughts? Jafeluv 05:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on two weeks for global sysops, whether a consensus appears or not. But if the candidate really has no chance (snowball clause), I think the request may be closed faster. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that for global sysop no less than 2 weeks of discussion shall occurr. I think that it was the spirit. Nevertheless I support making it clearer. If the candidate has no change really it makes no sense to keep it open and can be closed earlier. Best regards, -- Dferg 10:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Likewise, I think that more definitive wording would be beneficial, and what Jafeluv has works nicely. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A proposal and a question

In LMO Wikipedia, there has been a discussion (lmo:Wikipedia:Grott#Global_sysop), started by the G.S. Vituzzu. In that discussion, Vituzzu commented the LMO poll about "opt-out/opt-in" and censured a bit the poll writing: "non mi piace che la gente sia convinta a suon di argomentazioni quantomeno imprecise" (something as "I don't like that people are persuaded with imprecise reasoning").

After that discussion, I would to do a proposal and a question.


I propose that will be stated, as best practice for the G.S.s, that a G.S. should not comment or censure a poll about the "opt-out/opt-in" decision of a Wikipedia community (of course a G.S. should not vote in a such poll), because a G.S. is too much involved in a such poll.


In the same discussion, Vituzzu said that he deleted about 25.000 pages in the NAP Wikipedia, following a request coming from the " friends". I asked if there was a discussion with a publich and shared decision about such deletion, but it seems that it doesn't exist.

NAP Wikipedia has at this moment about 14.000 pages. 25.000 pages are more than the 60% of NAP Wikipedia pages. My point of view is that a such mass deletion should be decided in a public and shared discussion.

My question is: it's possible to state, as best practice for the G.S.s, that the G.S. privileges should be used, in big operation as the deletion of 60% of a Wikipedia pages, only after a public and shared discussion?

-- Dragonòt 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why a global sysop wouldn't be able to comment on a poll relating to opting in or out of the gs wikiset. They might have valuable insight to add, and while it would be bad practice to vote in the issue, I don't see anything wrong with discussing it.
The global sysop scope includes routine maintenance and countervandalism on small wikis. Vituzzu's actions were not only acceptable under the gs scope (considering that deleting pages in the wrong language is considered as routine maintenance), but also accepted by the local community per the discussion on his talk page. The deletions might not have been from a discussion, but none of the local community has objected to his doing so, and some have in fact requested that he do so. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if all these pages were written in another language and their content was almost [something or someone] is a thing or a person or [something or someone] is an asteroid or an asteroid has been named after it, I wrote to every active user before doing it. Since that comunity is small I preferred to contact editors via talkpages, in order to take advantage from email notification. Actually I've already answered you question even if, to be honest, it was, imho, just an attempt to sidetrack an issue. --Vituzzu 22:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Being one of the active users on, I can confirm what Vituzzu said: before acting were contacted via talkpages all active or semi-active users of the wiki, and all were in favor. Furthermore, we must remember that was the community to seek help from Vituzzu to solve this problem. It rests to say that the 25,000 pages deleted didn't have any content and were written mostly in Italian and Piedmontese. --Reder 18:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I endorse Ajr and Vito's statements. — Kudu ~I/O~ 23:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's obvious that global sysops have the right to comment on anything related to them, or anything else for that matter. Just like anyone else can. :) fr33kman 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just another couple of questions

  1. I'm reading: "I wrote to every active user" (Vituzzu) and "were contacted via talkpages all active or semi-active users" (Reder). It's possible to view that Vituzzu wrote via talkpage to 7 users: Realalfio, Masaniello, Radd94, Joetaras, TeenAngels1234, Reder, Grifter72 and to some anonimous IP address. Using the function NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS, it's possible to view that the NAP active users (excluding bot) are about 31. So not all the active users were contacted, but only the 22%. Why has been written that all the active users were contacted?
  2. I'm reading: "their content was almost [something or someone] is a thing or a person or ..." (Vituzzu). The page Global sysops states: "they (G.S.s) have no extra editorial control over content ...". Maybe a G.S. don't know the G.S. policies?

Dragonòt 16:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trolling.
Anyway, it's quite funny debunking your lies:
(Note: you're dealing with old datas)
  • 51 users listed as active-
    • 28 bot without flag (should I notice even them?) -
    • 10 non-NAP users dealing with some tech stuff only -
    • 8 inactive users at that time =
    • 46
  • 51-46 = 5 < 7...damn, I informed too many can I repair?
Dealing with your second I think you can understand with ease the meaning of both sentences you quoted, so there's no need to answer, is there it?
I'm wondering how long you'll go on trying getting a scoop out of my unutterable crimes and, also, I'm wondering if you'll propose a new policy stating users with global rights cannot laugh airy fairy accuses flung at them off.
--Vituzzu 17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "active"

Global sysops have their tools removed if unused for six months, but what qualifies as use? A recent example is Effeietsanders‎ , who had his tools removed even though he still uses them to view deleted revisions. I personally think that if a global sysop still has a use for the tools, they should be allowed to retain them - whether or not they have happened to make a block, deletion, or other logged action within the last six months. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't write it in stone, that's why I just restored the more generic language previously in place; I think that some judgement is needed in applying this policy, on a case by case basis. Sorry for noticing the other edit only now, but it was marked as minor and we probably all agreed that it didn't change anything, but interpreting it in "opposite" ways. :-p Nemo 21:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Logged sysop actions count as use. Probably MediaWiki namespace edits as well. Since there's no way to tell when a person has last viewed deleted revisions and how relevant it was to their work as a global sysop, I'm afraid there's not really any objective way to use that as a basis for evaluating activity. One logged action every six months certainly shouldn't be an excessively high requirement. If an inactive GS later wants the tools back, they can make a new request at SRGP to see if people still trust them with the tools. Jafeluv 21:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
GS is a volunteer role, I think that if the person says that they want to retain the tools they should be able to. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I second that! We need volunteers, and some actions won't be logged, so we should trust their words! a×pdeHello! 20:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  Comment Effeietsanders never used the global sysoptools after he requested them in July 2010. Trijnstel 20:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually he did - he requested them to view deleted revisions, and he has been using them for that. Naturally those views aren't logged, but he was still using the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, if the person is active enough to request continued use of the tool, then they should keep it. There are no privacy implications here like there are with CheckUser. I would only define inactive as people who have left either the project or countervandalism. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • ^that. If someoen says they're using them, the tools shouldn't be removed for inactivity as long as they're still active cross-wiki as editors or vandal reverters. Courcelles 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There appears to be consensus here to modify the policy to allow for global sysops retaining their tools upon request. If there aren't any more comments here within the next couple of days, then I'll add a line stating that to the policy page. I'd appreciate it if someone could advertise this on a mailing list (stewards-l?) or some other place so it can get a bit more exposure. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    stewards-l note sent. I think that it may be advertised on the GS's mailinglist as well. However since its creation I can only see 4 messages sent in a very wide range of dates so far; so I'm questioning whether the list is really useful or should be closed and deleted. It does not harm... but I find it quite useless right now.Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe GS's mailing list should be advertised. It is the first time I see somebody talking about it.” Teles (T @ L C S) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably. I thought it was advertised somewhere... at least I think I've seen it linked in this wiki somewhere in a page related to global sysops. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 22:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I was a global sysop for 6 months and I was never added to it (didn't know of it either). I've send a request to add me to it. Trijnstel 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I would personally like to remove the global sysop mailing list, and perhaps replace it with an SWMT one. I likewise want to remove the #wikimedia-gs channel on freenode and redirect it to #wikimedia-stewards. Global sysops act within an area of the steward scope, and given the basically identical nature of the work in that area, I don't understand the need for separate channels/mailing lists around this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No you don't. Stewards have access to and discuss information that needs RL identification. You're not gonna get access to that stuff without submitting your name and ID to WMF. Seb az86556 00:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
...I was referring to the scope of cleaning up vandalism and routine maintenance on small wikis, which is also an area of the steward scope. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
...and from that you concluded that you get access to all information and channels stewards have access to. Seb az86556 01:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. I've been trying to write less text walls, but obviously in doing so I'm not being perfectly clear. It is within both the steward scope and the global sysops scope to be doing countervandalism and routine maintenance on small wikis. In fact, the global sysop group was made to "help out" stewards in that area (or so many people said during the various discussions). Therefore, within that scope it does not make sense to have a mailing list for global sysops which stewards also use - it might as well be an swmt mailing list, since that is what it is actually for. Obviously, sensitive info would stay in the stewards list as it always has. My proposal is basically to have an swmt list that actually has its own scope, rather than some redundant global sysop list which might as well be removed since it just covers a small area of what stewards do, and its lack of use makes in ineffective. This new mailing list should be advertised, and involve stewards, global sysops and global rollbackers - it being a place where small wiki vandalism can be reported/discussed. In regards to the IRC channel, there is no sensitive information posted in #wikimedia-stewards. It does not make sense to have two channels for the same thing (though, again, the global sysop channel is on a much smaller scope). It makes much more sense to be able to report vandalism in #wikimedia-stewards and know that a steward or global sysop will get to it, rather than going into #wikimedia-gs and wondering if anyone is even around. I hope that this clears things up, and obviously I'm going to need to talk in paragraphs rather than look incompetent. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Return to "Global sysops/2011" page.