Talk:Global sysops/2015

Global banning

It was suggested here that I should ask the stewards.

To repeat: What I suggest is a ban globally on JarlaxleArtemis and Runtshit. They are 2 of the worst vandals on en.wp (I have my talk-page permanently semi-protected due to JarlaxleArtemis´s rape and murder-threaths.) Runtshit is the most prolific sock I know of. Sure; it woun´t stop them, but is sends a strong signal. (en.wp admins can look at my log to see what messages JarlaxleArtemis has left me. He has done similar things towards many, many editors/admins on en.wp. Since his identity is well-known (he lives in California), what about suing him?) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, global sysops are not able to lock global accounts. Stewards do that. SRG is where such requests are handled. --Glaisher (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

SRG is for global locking of specific accounts. For community global bans, see the global bans page. I don't see a need for a global ban, though, considering they're already de facto globally "banned". PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Community-based global bans are discussions of the community. Start such a discussion if you believe that is the means to progress, though to note that the user is already unwelcome, not a known contributor of good edits and constantly avoiding methods by enWP to block their abuse. If you believe that a user is abusing the Terms of Use, then this may be a matter for WMFOffice, and you may wish to consider WMF Global Ban Policy and the process outlined there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did start at WMF Global Ban Policy: they sent me here! Huldra (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative to delete.php?

Hi!

Is there any alternative to delete.php?

Thanks. Alan ^(talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, seems like something died... I'll take a look. --Rschen7754 17:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be back up and running, toollabs has gotten a lot of restarts lately. BTW, if anyone wants to help maintain/rewrite it, please let me know (we lucked out today because it's the weekend and I'm here, if this had been a weekday I might not have noticed for several hours if at all). --Rschen7754 17:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Alan ^(talk) 18:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if the tool works you should get redirects from its previous URLs. There are still people who look for it in the wrong places, it seems. Nemo 15:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

globalblock-whitelist

Moved to SRM: diff. --Glaisher (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to modify/remove userpage requirement

I propose to modify the following part of the policy after full deployment of global userpages:

Global sysops must have user pages on every wiki they use their global sysop access on, which provides contact information or links to their primary user page (creation bot available currently).

Here's a possible replacement:

Global sysops must either have user pages on every wiki they use their global sysop access on, which provides contact information or links to their primary user page (creation bot available currently), or have a global userpage on Meta.

PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I think it's much more suitable for the role. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 00:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Very good. --MF-W 02:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I would think that if the user page at meta is the default and there is no means to prevent it propagating xwiki unless they have a userpage at the wiki that it becomes a redundant extrapolation. It should be sufficient enough to require that GS have a user page at meta. That covers the requirement now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2015‎

I agree with Billinghurst that a shorter sentence would be sufficient e.g.:

Global sysops must have a global user page on Meta with contact information or links to their primary user page (creation bot available currently).

Green Giant (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. It's better than my original proposed version. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If the whole wikicode is encapsuled between <noinclude></noinclude> tags then the page is no longer global (cfr. mw:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage#Controlling_what_content_is_displayed) then I support the first proposed change. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Vituzzu.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 18:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if a meta user page is non-global, I think the key element is that there should be contact information or links to elsewhere. Green Giant (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional flags and name change

Related topic: Talk:Global rollback#Autoreview

Hi all, I think it would be logical to include "autoreview" and "review" (and "unreviewedpages") flags to GS permission as well as "autopatrol" and "patrol". Additionally I think that global-sysop is not a suitable name for this permission because, as all of you know, it has no global effects, so I propose the name small-wikis-sysop or something similar. I wait for your opinions. Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

review/autoreview/... are all local rights that have been implemented by the communities, not even steward have the rights. It does not stop you editing, such that we leave the communities to make their decision on such matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: as I mentioned above, they are the same cases than "autopatrol" and "patrol" flags, I think, and these flags are included into the permission. Maybe "autopatrol" and "patrol" flags have to be removed from the permission. On the other hand, what do you think about changing the name of the permission?--Syum90 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an English language name, and I would think that it matters not for those who are not native speakers. It is well-entrenched, and would not think that people's laziness and inability to worry about it will win. No change without an RFC either way.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll only open a RFC if this discussion arouses much interest, but I do not think it will happen.--Syum90 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Review and autoreview pertain to Flagged Revisions and allow users to check pending edits (cf. Pending Changes on en-wiki). I do not think that becoming a global sysop qualifies the user to be a reviewer. As a sidenote, the Finnish Wikipedia has among its criteria a passable knowledge of the Finnish language for all its reviewers. So I oppose the idea. They are not "the same cases as autopatrol and patrol" but belong to a different branch of the wikitree altogether. --Pxos (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Commenting here as an admin on en.wikibooks, not a Steward. We have Flagged Revisions enabled and I doubt the community would approve a default of global sysops being able to review by default. At the moment it is applied via auto promotion criteria that people dislike being shortcut by manual permission granting. However, local practice is to add the Reviewer flag to global sysops, global rollbackers and Stewards once they have been active on the project for a short while. This is to save local Reviewers having to manually check rollbacks performed by global functionaries. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Adding global abuse filter rights to global sysops

Please note the proposal Requests for comment/Adding global abuse filter rights to global sysops which I have proposed be open for discussion until mid August.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:GS links

Global sysop
To do
SR miscellaneous GS requests Global blocks & locks xwiki deletions List of Wikimedia projects Admins' noticeboards Global maintenance
Policies and communication
GS policy Global policies Mailing list #wikimedia-gsconnect

Hi, I've created this template with links that are very useful for me, and I think they can be useful for other GS's. Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose to add this template, with changes that you'll propose, to Global sysops and Category:Global sysops.--Syum90 (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)