Template talk:SWMT-Members

Add topic
Active discussions

Listing of other "roles"Edit

I don't think it's necessary to list all your user rights on this page. Only the ones that have involvement with being on this team, such as steward, checkuser and rollbacker. Otherwise it clutters the page. Majorly talk 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, only the steward and CU links are needed since SWMT don't necessarily need to be sysops anywhere to be part so it really doesn't matter and if everyone started adding theirs, it will be a mess, remove all except stewards and CU's ...--Cometstyles 22:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And global rollback... Majorly talk 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with both of you. Cbrown1023 talk 03:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to add your new role, Cbrown1023? Kylu 04:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Hey people! There are people on this who aren't inactive but moreover no longer active on any project. They just left the wmf. What is the point of listing inactive people? If someone needs help/looks at the list, only the active people/new people are of interest. I think we should just remove the inactive people instead of listing them. Opinions? -Barras 14:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, especially since it makes it less of a vanity list, and as you say there really isn't any need to know why used to be active in SWMT (though it is kinda interesting). Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you both. mickit 15:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Does inactive mean retired? When one lists himself as "inactive" what's the purpose of this?
If any subdivision is needed we should list them as
  1. active members
  2. veteran members (experienced, but currently busy with other projects)
  3. new members (learning, recently joined)
Any user with no edits on any wmf project at all for a certain time period (one year?) should be delisted immediately. axpdeHello! 08:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Veteran just substitutes inactive. Kinda useless. Either be active or get removed. It doesn't make a difference if someone is listed under inactive or veteran. Both things have no meaning for the currently active members of the SWMT. -Barras 09:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Inactive doesn't say whether this user is inactive as a swmt-member or inactive at all, that's why I substituted "inactive". I think "veteran" suits better, it doesn't imply that this user won't come back. And I added an explanation to all to clearify how much experience you might expect - otherwise we could get rid of those three columns anyways ... axpdeHello! 08:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't mind removing the columns at all, to be honest. -Barras 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see a need for keep listing inactive users. If there is any reason for the existence of the list, only active member should be listed. Same question: What is the point of listing inactive people?” Teles (Talk @ C S) 07:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason why this has never been implemented? There's seemed to be a clear consensus for removing the column. I would suggest that we do so now. Snowolf How can I help? 14:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Inactive is inactive is inactive. Great when people help but when they don't there is no need to list them any longer (simply my view). --Herby talk thyme 15:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I recall removing Innv from this list last year :D Snowolf How can I help? 15:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. And maybe we should remove the inactive people from the other lists (active & new) too. Trijnsteltalk 18:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  Done: removed the "Veteran members" section. This list may also need to be updated: there are two stewards and a few more experienced users still in the "New members" section. Mathonius (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I seem to think the idea was that only experienced members could put "new" members into the main list. --Herby talk thyme 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Page moveEdit

Not that I care much, but this edit summary is a bit excessive, there's no reason why a template should be considered more appropriate than a subpage; I personally prefer the opposite, for instance, unless you find a category for this template so that it's correctly inserted in the hierarchy of pages. Nemo 06:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is not linked normally, it is included into other pages, thus it is a template. axpdeHello! 06:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I also would prefer if you didn't constantly move pages to the template namespace just because they're transcluded on other pages. This isn't the first time I've seen that happen... Cbrown1023 talk 15:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Then why do we have a template namespace? Template namespace tells everyone: This is no page on it's own, this page is included in other pages.
Concerning "constantly move pages" & "isn't the first time" ... could it be you've mistaken me for someone else? You really should take a look at my move log:
  • two moves to correct spelling („Developer“ → „Developers“, „WikiMiniAtlas/AR“ → „WikiMiniAtlas/ar“)
  • one move to revert vandalism („Edwoard coner“ → „Board elections/2011/ro“)
  • one move to correct namespace („Small Wiki Monitoring Team/Members“ → „Template:SWMT-Members“)
Btw. I sense an aggressive undertone in your edit, could you please explain whats wrong? axpdeHello! 17:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I must be confusing you with someone else. There are a few new users on Meta-Wiki who try to "fix" things that don't actually need to be fixed — sorry for thinking that was you! About the template namespace, templates are centrally controlled items that are included in multiple pages and usually have parameters that you can use to adjust them. Usually items that are only included in one or two pages and are about a specific page can be a sub page. There's no problem either way, but we shouldn't get into the habit of just moving pages around for the sake of moving them. It looks like you're not one of the people who constantly moves pages around just for fun, so never mind. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 17:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
With regard to «This is no page on it's own, this page is included in other pages», I disagree that a list of members doesn't make sense on his own, but as I said this is not so important. "Templates" are still objects that have to be findable; if there's no category, subpages help, so losing both is rather a worsening IMHO. But again, we're speaking about few pages and there isn't anything dramatic. Nemo 08:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Per Nemo and Cbrown. I do not think this page is actually a template. Move back to subpage. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


Users should be able to opt-out to listing their rights. If someone really cares, they should see Special:GlobalUsers. Some people don't think that experience or trust is just measured by user rights. Cheers, PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a measure of experience, but of who has which right and can help with specific SWMT-related tasks. Of course, if someone wouldn't want his rights listed, I don't think that would be an issue. Savhñ 23:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


I've cleaned up the active members list and part of the new members list (will probably finish that on Tuesday). I wonder tho if there's any real value both in maintaining the lists separate and in maintaining the lists at all. It's a significant effort to maintain it (people on the list had been inactive for 4 years at times, had been globally locked and what not) and to me it has no use in its current form. Thoughts? Snowolf How can I help? 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally would say scrap this list (as a template) as it will just gather dust after this clean up. We have nobody that maintains it regularly so it will get out of date really fast. --Wiki13 talk 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a list where users can list themselves if they feel they belong to the SWMT. No need to "maintain" it at all. Vogone talk 21:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd be OK with just removing the list, since it doesn't serve any useful purpose. There are more than enough lists of global sysops and stewards already. I do agree with Vogone that there is no need to maintain it if it is kept, just like we don't remove the SWMT userbox from inactives. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel the list should be deleted, but not very strongly. --Rschen7754 21:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I like this list. --MF-W 22:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
+1, MF-W. In my opinion, it shows a bit the users behind SWMT, and it encourages people to help, to join or to ask other SWMT users (who are not necesarily global sysops, global rollbackers or stewards, a look at this template says enough. Not all stewards and global sysops are on this list either). I don't think it does much harm that it's outdated, since people would logically contact people they see on the list and that are active. Savhñ 22:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

SWMT powerEdit

Respectful greetings @Vermont:, Do you still think you have a place in New Members?   With service records like yours, I think you can go to the next column. No? Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I've updated it. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


Why we even using two columns for members And how experienced/new thing works? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea. Masum Reza 17:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@1997kB and Masumrezarock100: I know if I have a problem or question, I ask someone directly on the left column. The new ones will surely do the same. A very long time ago, there was everyone in one list, then another separate page - now cleared. A desire to signal the gr and gs emerged. It was the capharnaüm. Then, there were 3 columns on this separate page: New members, Veteran members and Active members. The Veterans column was confusing on skills (former) and activity. The inactive were ejected. Thus, 2 columns remained (2012 - 2013): one on competent persons (with or without additional right) and the other on interested persons who can rely on the knowledge of the other column. See Template talk:SWMT-Members#Inactive. My opinion is to leave 2 columns for the same reason. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel: IMO the purpose of this list is just to include users who are interested in SWMT. Being separated in two columns is utterly confusing as well as unmanageable, plus there's no bar by which you can say who is experienced or not. I can point many users who are in new users but are well experienced. Also if some new user add them in new section they hardly come back to update that they are experienced. I have seen people updating other users after they become gr/gs. Now as you mentioned if new users have any questions about SWMT or xwiki patrolling, they should prefer Talk:Small Wiki Monitoring Team, instead of deciding who is experienced and ask at their talk pages.
@Masumrezarock100: This is what I was talking about. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I support merging into one list, I see no benefit of having two lists. As long as individuals on the list are active, that's all that matters. If users are looking for experienced members, they will know to click on the users with implied experience due to the user rights listed beside their name (GR, GS or Steward) ~riley (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK, in the past, you started your name in the new section and then some experienced user will then move you to experienced section if they think you are experienced enough. Now we can just add in whatsoever column we feel suitable. Per riley and 1997kB, just merge into one is better as this 2 column is clearly non sustainable in the long run, and the recent RFD on this managed to a keep with conditions that it is well maintained. So if this will cause things to be easier to be managed, why not merge? Experience can be easily seen in the global rights each member hold and if the newer members need advice, maybe we can include "If you need help on how to start conducting SWMT activities, do reach out to any GR,GS etc."? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it has always been a matter of people's own judgement where they wanted to place themselves in the list. --MF-W 15:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And perhaps, a reflection of one's own judgement. --Rschen7754 07:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I wonder what's the whole point of this listing to be honest. At a quick glance I see several usernames listed there that do not do SWMT activies in ages. {{looks useless}} to me. You can do SWMT work without being in any list, specially when being part of the so-called SWMT team confers its members no "privilege". —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(most list of users like these are honestly a pain to maintain -- they are of course well meaning, but in my experience just create administrative workloads with no benefits) Snowolf How can I help? 03:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Valid points, we can try to do clean up. We did once after conclusion of this RFD and I think we can just do it once more (given there is volunteer time - but a better use I shall admit is to do more SWMT work). I agree membership in SWMT did not and should not have any additional privilege, duty maybe. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Alot of WikiProjects also don't give any privilege to it's participants but still people are interested in them and list themselves as is SWMT imo. And having a list create some interest in users to do certain task and I think this list is helpful at that. But we surely shouldn't divide the list in two different groups and make a single one as like WikiProjects to which I compare SWMT. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
One more issue I have with the 2 columns is that the headings read "active" and "new", not all new members are inactive, I think the converse is true. And I see some in the active columns being not that active. 1997kB I see a rough consensus that the 2 columns can be merged, why not we just BOLDly merge them? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I have merged the list. Now I see alot of inactive users, please help removing them. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks 1997kB. As per inactive, I hesitate as like Wikiprojects (as far as the projects I am a part of or glanced through), we don't typically remove people. This can be another discussion. I think what will be better is a friendly heads up to all people listed on the list to see if they still wish to be part of the list etc. Maybe a mass-message will be good. Best, --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, we also don't include user rights in such list, I don't know why we doing it here, but yeah that's subject for another discussion too. And I think mass message is not good idea for such issue. ‐‐1997kB (talk)

Remove all rights and keep it as any other WikiProject type listEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus in favour of removing the rights from the list. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, it's been long time since we stopped using two different sections for new and experienced users.

Now I think we should also remove user rights. Reason I'm saying that is self explanatory after looking at history of template. People lists themselves and they hardly come back and then few ones give their valuable time updating their roles and there's no value having user rights in list of interested participants and neither this list is of GRs or GSs—they have separate properly maintained tables/charts at Template:List of global sysops and Template:GlobalRollbackersChart or Template:StewardsList for stewards.

So I propose to remove rights from the list. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ping to recent users who seems to updating the list @Eihel, Minorax, Uncitoyen, Hasley, and Nadzik: @Evrifaessa, DannyS712, and Camouflaged Mirage: or anybody else watching this page. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


  •   Support (support and information may be found elsewhere) —Eihel (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I removed the rights per the last discussion for myself, I don't know why it is re-added, seems sensible proposal. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 1997kB, I have to tell you, that I had a minor heart attack when I saw the notification and it said "1997kB mentioned you in "Remove all rights and..."" :D. I think that we may remove the rights. As SWMT grows, it will only make it harder to track who has which rights. Also, it does not matter who has which rights as we all come here to help smaller wikis. Nadzik (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Reasonable. It's easy to find relevant information in other places, and keeping a manual list here only makes it harder to maintain.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 18:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
    • (+1 harder to maintain, difficult to update) —Eihel (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I already removed the rights next to my name a while ago --DannyS712 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, per proposal. Sgd. —Hasley 19:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No problem for me to either keep or remove the global user rights in this list. Since this list is long, it may be difficult to update it correctly. Also as other users said, maybe it can lead to misperception for new users. --Uncitoyentalk 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support by Nadzik --ZabeMath (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. --Minorax (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. --mirinano (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Why this is reverted? Well, can I revert this edit then? --Kanasalaatti (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC).

Return to "SWMT-Members" page.