Wikipedia talk:Global rights usage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments much appreciated. See relevant discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#New_global_userright and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rollback_for_stewards. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you added the IRC link, I fully support this proposal. MBisanz talk 01:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I also endorse this. I can see it being slightly redundant with the opt-out section at meta concerning AVFs, but having a clear statement here concerning our practice is probably the best way to do things. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Using rollback on enwiki

"This includes rollback — AVF's must request and be granted the right locally, and should it be removed or not granted, they are not allowed to use rollback on this wiki."

Why? — Werdna talk 09:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The next sentence explains. Daniel (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"Rather than interfering with the global AVF applications process at Meta to enforce local standards of user rights, the English Wikipedia community would rather be autonomous with regards to rollback (and all other) rights usage.". Sounds like a load of nonsense to me, to be honest. These anti-vandal-fighters can already revert edits using undo, or with twinkle, or with some other software tool, or, heaven forbid, using a manual reversion. In my capacity as a meta administrator, I frequently work on the spam blacklist — and this often requires reverting some link addition on 20+ wikis. It is unreasonable to expect me to consult a little table or something to figure out if I'm allowed to use rollback for each link (currently, I use undo, and, since I just click on each diff link, and click on where I know the undo link to be, I don't really pay any attention to what wiki I'm on). I don't understand that the justification here outweighs the benefits of requiring 20 clicks to revert this spamming, rather than 40. — Werdna talk 11:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What if an AVF has had their rollback removed with prejudice before being granted AVF tools? They're all of a sudden allowed to override the local community consensus? That was the idea of the proposal. Furthermore, what happens if/when someone abuses rollback (to the point where, if it was granted locally, it'd be revoked)? Under your proposal, the English Wikipedia could not prohibit its use here even if it would otherwise be disallowed. Daniel (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
After discussing the merits of various angles to take on this issue with Werdna and other administrators, I spat out this, which seems to be more along a compromise line of thinking. Thoughts much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Much preferred, thank you. It represents a good compromise between protecting English Wikipedia consensus from being overridden from a comparably smaller outside consensus or bureaucracy, and reducing bureaucracy for those who need a streamlined process for global administration. — Werdna talk 11:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's just about there, if Rollback has been refused, or has been granted and removed, then the person shouldn't be using the Rollback function, but I think a block for edit warring in the past 90 days would also rule out the use of the Rollback tool. Anything older than 90 days would be fine with me, and it's usually fine at RfA, unless it's repeated. I've said this already, but we shouldn't be writing policy to stop people unsuited such roles from doing damage, we should be stopping these unsuited users from ever being given access to these tools in the first instance. I would therefore like to see a link to the voting at Meta for these roles included in the list at WP:RFA. Nick (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
90 days sounds like a good idea - the comparison you draw with the general time lapse at enwp RfA is very relevant. I've boldly added it to the proposal.
About listing requests at RfA, I would suggest that such a discussion may be better served until after this proposal is finalised and/or accepted as policy. There would possibly be issues regarding selection bias if we listed it at RfA itself, but I certainly agree that having requested listed somewhere locally would be a good idea. We could even consider having a bot update a section on this page, which would only be watched by those interested in the global rights thing rather than RfA in general. Also, because AVF's can't use administrator-specific tools, RfA may not be exactly the right venue. But I certainly agree with the principle. Daniel (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can support this version. Lets see if it causes any problems in practice. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal as overly bureaucratic and lacking AGF. AVF's are to be elected from the number of experienced users, already having sysop access on one, usually more projects. They will be experienced with cross-wiki issues and re expected to be sane enough to treat rollback appropriately even without reading the letter of local policy. So, these people are one of those who get rollback easily here, regardless of amount of their contributions. So, requiring them to request +rollback explicitly is nothing but instruction creep, and instruction creep should burn in hell. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They don't have to request rollback. The only case where they would is if they use it improperly and only after that fact do they have to request it from an administrator. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't think any part of MaxSem's objection applies to the proposal as written. Daniel (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, I misread some things. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watching deleted edits for AVFs

I think that there is no sense to forbid that to AVFs because it is not possible to monitor such actions. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 14:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's something that would be exceptionally useful for any Commons administrators and editors who are looking for source, copyright and file information when dealing with images moved onto Commons. I would certainly support any user who is accessing deleted revisions to deal with Commons copyright issues, and in the many other areas too where such access would be useful, I would generally support the accessing of deleted revisions. Nick (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One issues would be that en-wp has adopted oversight only for release of personal information (as per foundation policy). We would need to be very specific with AVFs that they may not release deleted material concerning BLPs, copyvios, etc. MBisanz talk 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it should be defined inside of the documents related to AVFs. Maybe you may here define the policy which would be transferred to Meta? --millosh (talk (meta:)) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Describing stewards' permissions

I think that it should be mentioned that stewards are giving CU and OS permissions (when asked by en.wp community) and removing all permissions (when asked by en.wp community or the Board). --millosh (talk (meta:)) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community cannot grant CU or OS permissions; only the Arbitration Committee can. It can also not revoke it; only the Committee or the Board can, as well. Daniel (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red tape

Frankly, I see too much of it here. One question I have is, does this interfere with the rollback system we have in place? —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. The only case in which our rollback system becomes involved is if an AVF misuses rollback and then has to request the +rollback bit directly from an administrator. Aside from that, there's no interaction with our rollback process. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seems fine

This seems fairly uncontroversial and agreeable. Happy to support. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems to be a sensible proposal. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Part with stewards role

I described stewards role toward granting and revoking permissions. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 04:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)