Wikimedia Forum

←Discussion pages

Metapub

Archives→

<translate> The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the [[<tvar|wmf>Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation</>|Wikimedia Foundation]] and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see [[<tvar|meta-babel>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Babel</>|Meta:Babel]].)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the [[<tvar|mediawiki>Special:MyLanguage/MediaWiki</>|MediaWiki software]]; please ask such questions at the [[<tvar|mw-support-desk>mw:Project:Support desk</>|MediaWiki support desk]]; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on [[<tvar|tech>Special:MyLanguage/Tech</>|Tech]] page.</translate>

<translate> You can reply to a topic by clicking the "<tvar|editsection>[edit]</>" link beside that section, or you can [<tvar|newsection>//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&action=edit&section=new</> start a new discussion].</translate>

You can reply to a topic by clicking the '[edit]' link beside that section, or start a new discussion

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

This page experimentally allows language localisation.

Logo overlapping text on "wiki does not exist" page.

If you look at the page for a wiki that does not exist, e.g. http://cv.wiktionary.org in Firefox 2.0.0.14 in Linux (not tested in other browsers/platforms) you see the following at the start of the page:

Obviously this is an error. I'm not certain if this is the right place to report it, but the page claims to be from Meta and this appears to be the general comments page for Meta. Thryduulf (en,commons) 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the page still links to holopedia (now Min Nan Wikipedia). -- Prince Kassad 14:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is pretty old and kinda ugly in general, it could use a revamp. :-) I suggest you open up a bug on Bugzilla for them to fix this error (we can't change it from here on Meta). Cbrown1023 talk 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Modification of the official board election page

The Election Committee would like to ask the community of administrator on Meta to refrain from editing the English version of the Board election page Board elections/2008/en.

The page was protected by the committee as it contain the official rules for the election, and is the source for translations. Its current wording and formatting is what's agreed by the committee.

Of course, if you spot anything which you think may be an error, any ambiguity, or any points which you feel should be modified, feel free to suggest it to the election committee either on the talk page, on foundation-l, or straight to the election committee. However, please take into account any changes to the page requires all the translations to be updated and hence it is unlikely the page will be modify simply for small grammatical changes.

For the election committee,

Kwan Ting Chan (KTC) -- 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

With all this talk about globalization...

...just how exactly impossible would it be to implement global templates? I think it would be great to transclude pages from other projects, but I'm also totally ignorant of the performance costs in this. I know Wikia does this, but that was a "from the start" sort of thing, if I recall correctly.

Perhaps maybe not completely global, but I can see a certain value in being able to transclude Meta pages directly onto any project. We already force duplicates of content on en.wp; it would be great if we could simply transclude Help:Edit summary at w:Help:Edit summary, rather than fork it. It would also allow us to fully standardize all the Babel boxes; just create a local copy here at Meta, and voila, it's instantly available on any project. I'll admit that my initial thinking on this was changing all my userpages to transclude a local "generic" version; dunno if any other wide-editing admins would find that useful as well, but with SUL already here for admins and around the corner for everyone else, it might be an even more valid reason.

How feasible is this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. But it will require huge amount of coding and possible database restructuring — VasilievVV 16:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This would also be nice for having local wikis fetch Help: pages which do not exist on that wiki from (Meta|MediaWiki wiki|Commons|elsewhere). Many/most wikis have enough of a struggle writing content without having to worry also about writing complete help pages. While language will be an issue, this would at least reduce duplication of effort by sharing help files between wikis (dynamically, rather than forking) while still allowing customization on a per-wiki basis. See bugzilla:12306 and bugzilla:4547. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Language would indeed be an issue at the beginning, but for smaller wikis (where English can run rampant anyway), there could be at least some content, and the translations that happen here could be spread out over all the other wikis in each language. I think this could be a very, very beneficial feature. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Steward requests/SUL requests/Usurpation policy

Everyone is welcome to comment it on the talk page — VasilievVV 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Illegitimate arbitrators elections in Russian Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed: Dispute was resolved locally

---

There is upcoming 6th Arbitration Committee staff elections campaign in Russian Wikipedia (see Википедия:Выборы_арбитров/Весна_2008).

But bureaucrats (ru:User:Maximaximax and ru:User:Obersachse) without ANY discussion with the community of ru-wiki decided that elections will be hold on third-party site ( http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kalan/arb6/ ).

Many of the russian Wikipeida considers that this bureaucrats individual decision is the violation of Wikipedia Policies (see talk at Обсуждение_Википедии:Выборы_арбитров/Весна_2008):

• any voter must have e-mail address, but according to Wikimedia Policy, there is no need for it; hence there is no equal rights for any Wikipedia user;
• ru:User:Kalan (author of script-based elections on tool-server) theoretically can view (and log) voters' IP-addresses, but he is not a checkuser of Russian Wikipedia; hence there is violation of Wikimedia privacy policy;
• there was a delay of beginning of election campaign on 12,5 hours because of Kalan's mistakes in script (probably); by the way, elections campaign started over a half of day later than it had to start;

Can stewards of Wikimedia STOP this election campaign because of its illegibility and bureaucrats' tyranny? --Jaroslavleff 07:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Internal community conflicts aren't subject of stewards activity — VasilievVV 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But what we can do if bureaucrats say that elections anyway will be hold on third-party server, and community in most of users says that it is illegal? Will elected Arbcom be legal or illegal? --Jaroslavleff 07:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Open an arbitration case on Russian Wikipedia. But don't bring your own wiki issues on Meta, please. We don't override local decisions on Meta. P.S. Arbitration Committee elections on some Wikipedia aren't subject of Foundation's policies — VasilievVV 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an election campaign, case will be listen by future arbcom staff, which will be elected via third-party site, and results of the elections can be wrong due to juggling or anything, which we (community) cannot verify. So, arbitrators (theoretically) will be bureaucrats' proteges... --Jaroslavleff 07:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Khristos voskrese, if you are whoever listen to it with a delight.

Back to the topic, VasilieVV is quite right here. Stewards use their technical abilities only per request based on community consensus. And the entire course described on the above has no relation to technical abilities entrusted to stewards. I have no idea why you thought stewards was involved. --Aphaia 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But can we hear here stewards' opinion on this situation? --Jaroslavleff 07:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not steward, just a meta admin, but have to say that such procedure doesn't break any Foundation policy and was used on Commons:Picture of the Year elections — VasilievVV 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat ru:User:Obersachse BLOCKED a poll about this situation: ru:Википедия:Голосования/Выборы_арбитражного_комитета_на_стороннем_сервере! What we can do now? --Jaroslavleff 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is completely the internal affair of Russian Wikipedia and no related to the other community whose members stewards are and the Foundation. It should be solved at first on your own community, not meta. You are however welcome to open a request for comment on our RFC, but if you did not do the appropriate on your wiki before opening inter-wiki RFC, you would be rather criticized and taste more bitterness than at your home. --Aphaia 08:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What we can do? Bureaucrats block all our initiatives! Thanks for the link to RFC, I didn't know about it. Later we asked there if we could not do anything... --Jaroslavleff 08:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I told you, open an arbitration case — VasilievVV 12:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You should still at least make the attempt. Keep in mind that, for every legitimate effort to rectify the situation that they shut down, the better your argument looks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your postion, Aphaia. But would like to make couple comments to show your the situation and existing concerns under different angle. If you analyze changes in administration approach in Russian section, you will be able to make a conclusion, that there are obviuos attempts to establish total information control on this power independent resource (implicitly or explicitly - who knows). Analogy between changes and methods of establishing such control in Russian society in recent years and this information project are obvious. It's not future, right now we have one very power administration control on not only technical aspects of the project (whhich I agree is very important) but also on information content of the project. And this administrative resource continues to strength this control through the steps similar to one described above, by ignoring community opinion. The whole Wikipedia community should take this seriously if freedom of speach and rights for individual to express his/her own opinion are the values. --Poa 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I again wonder why there is no arbitration case yet. Just bringing it here without using last chance to resolve the dispute within Russian Wikipedia community confuses me — VasilievVV 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you open an RFC case suggesting to desysop all administrators of Russian Wikipedia. It would be fun to read the reasoning. --Yaroslav Blanter 17:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I wonder is this according to WMF policy to give access to IP of every voters to some guy who is not a checkuser?91.145.207.60 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  Toolserver isn't subject of any WMF policy. You use it on your own risk — VasilievVV 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  And that's exactly the problem: a site that's not subject to the WMF policies would be the host of supposedly policy-regulated election. --BeautifulFlying 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  Well, as I said, it's not problem of Meta-wiki or whole Wikimedia foundation, it's a problem of Russian Wikipedia community and should be found out there — VasilievVV 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• The conflict was resolved. Elections will be taken by standart procedure without any tool-server. Thank you all for your comments. User:dima io22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad to hear that! However, just as a note for future reference, I want to echo what VasilievVV and Aphaia said... this matter is not one that stewards would get involved in as it is an internal matter to the ruwiki. Stewards don't arbitrate disputes or judge policy matters. They only evaluate whether consensus exists or process is followed, before deciding about flipping a bit. That's as far as judgement takes them. That's my view, speaking as one particular steward. ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical wishlist

Everybody is welcome to add their wishlist there — VasilievVV 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate

In replying to a suggestion at wikt:Wiktionary:Feedback, I have discovered that every multilingual and English language Wikimedia project has some content related to chocolate (although this is tenuous in Wikiversity's case), I have not investigated projects in other languages. I've saved the list at wikt:User:Thryduulf/chocolate, if anyone here is interested/bored enough to expand it to other languages, or indeed do anything else with it, feel free. Thryduulf (en,commons) 01:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Global rollback group

I suggest to introduce a global group, called "rollback".

Rollbackers' privileges: rollback

Requirements for rollbackers: to have rollback privilege on some Wikimedia project.

— VasilievV ² 12:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm only aware of the "rollback" group on the English Wikipedia myself at the moment, are there any others which have implemented this? From my knowledge of the process to gain rollback on enwikip, I'm not sure I'd be confident in granting rollback globally on the basis of rollback there. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to grant this those with admin rights on any WMF project. Adambro 12:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think the requirements need to be rather tighter than that. Taking an example - because someone has "rollback" on en wp does not mean I think they should be able to do the same here or on Commons. I think they should be cross wiki admins/Small Wiki Monitoring Team folk personally --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Adam and Herby, in that the English Wikipedia rollback system and selection is not sufficiently high for global rollback, and indeed to define global rollback as such would simply raise the bar at individual wikis and hence cause more consternation. I support the suggestion of "any administrator on any Wikimedia Foundation wiki" (excluding testwiki and other assorted similar projects) upon their request at Meta. Daniel (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just wonder what does "assorted similar projects" mean — VasilievV ² 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, projects similar to Test Wiki in that they aren't exactly mainstream Wikimedia projects. You could include, for example, internalwiki, otrswiki, Wikimania wikis, Incubatorwiki etc. as those which the administrators don't de facto qualify under the "Adminship on a Wikimedia Foundation wiki = rollback" rule. Daniel (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Incubator is a content project, and we have test-admins there — VasilievV ² 13:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, confused Incubator with Betawiki. But the point is still the same in effect. Daniel (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just something else to consider, since I understand that SUL hasn't been rolled out beyond administrators yet, wouldn't it be impossible to grant this to anyone who doesn't have admin rights somewhere from a technical point of view? Adambro 12:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment yes (under the false assumption that only sysops have SULed accounts). But other users are going to get SULed sooner or later and making a policy now that covers that case as well is wiser, IMHO. --FiLiP ¤ 13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just noting that SUL being more widely available would be a prerequisite to anyone other than admins having any global rights so would rule out giving global rollback to anyone who isn't an admin at the present time. Adambro 14:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Global rollback would definitely be useful for fighting cross wiki vandalism, spam etc. However, I'm not sure how it should be implemented. For instance on nlwiki there's no local rollback group, but would a global group be possible? I agree with Herby and Daniel about the requirements. I think it should be reserved to cross wiki admins and the SWMT and you'd have to be an admin somewhere. --Erwin(85) 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins for now is fine by me. It's not like rollback is a very high-power tool, so I'd want to see it expanded once SUL is rolled out for all.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, global rollback for admins is a great idea. The auto-summery being in the project's local language would also be a plus. Global rollback for non-admins would cause a lot issues, I think, if it's done like it is now. Let's say some admin somewhere thinks anyone who asks nicely should have it, while another admin somewhere else thinks no one but admins should have it. You have cross-project wheel-warring without a unified community to step in between. They may even support their respective admin's actions. You would need a global policy of who can get the right, who can remove it, what the criteria is, etc. I don't think it'd really be worth it for just rollback. Rocket000 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Already tested Global rollback, it was great, only had it for 12 minutes, the stewards are interested in introducing this soon, but they firstly need a guideline to govern it to prevent abuse, and they are discussing it on the stewards-l and they might just implement it soon, AZ1568 is the other person that had a slight preview of it, and I think it will be an excellent addition to our Global wikimedia family :) ..--Cometstyles 10:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

iu.wikt

Hola Piolinfax, please don't make this site blink so much (it makes me dizzy). I am quite surprised by this decision, in fact imho it is wrong. I have requested to reopen the wiki in Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Inuktitut Wiktionary and bugzilla:13967. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Piolinfax ^(@es.wikt) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia listing news on their Main Page?

I recently posted a comment on Wikipedia's Village Pump reagarding their news section on their main page. If Wikimedia projects are truly coming closer together (Unified Login, etc.) then why is Wikipedia (the largest of their projects) stealing territory from Wikinews? (Often, in typography, it is difficult to determine what kind of mood someone is in when typing, please know that I am not angry when typing this.)

You do not open the newspaper to find general knowledge and information, nor do you open the encyclopedia to find the latest in happenings. I am in complete favour of Wikipedia having the news section simply as links to the Wikinews project, but not to an encyclopedia article.

I am in complete and full favour of attempting to get all of the Wikimedia projects as large as Wikipedia, and am thrilled by movements towards this, such as Unified Login.

Thank you! Agomulka 12:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I, as someone who contributes frequently to both enwikip and enwikinews, don't see a problem. These aren't news articles, these are encyclopaedic articles which happen to be related to current events. I think this is of a great benefit to readers who will visit the homepage and then quickly find something interesting to read about which is current and in the news at the time. I don't really consider it encroaching onto the scope of Wikinews and I think it potentially benefits both projects. Adambro 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No more admins

Hi, I am a casual editor on multiple Wikimedia projects, especially Wikipedia and Wikisource (in English and Romanian), and on Commons. I want to ask a question about what happens if a project "runs out" of admins. For example, there were only three admins on the Romanian Wikisource, two of which aren't active anymore, and the third is barely active. I asked for adminship on the Romanian Wikisource, but since there was no other admin to discuss, well, nothing happened. The problem is that WS:ro is still being edited by people, even though there almost aren't any more admins there. The point is that I would like to become an admin there, so that I can also update WS, and other things. Is there any way to do that from here, if there are no more admins there? Note: As I said above there still is one more admin still showing some kind of activity, but very, very rarely. -- diego_pmc 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is no problem, if the community is too small to hold a voting just request temp-adminship at rfp. Admins are voted in by the local community, so if there are still people editing they could hold a voting. But if not I would recommend to ask for the temp - status, which is technically the same (same admin-functions), You just check back some time before the status expires to let us know everything is fine.

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

K, thanks for the answer. -- diego_pmc

Usurpation policy

IMPORTANT! This vote is intended to reflect the consensus for an old version of the proposed policy (see the initiator's comment below). In the meanwhile, the proposal has changed significantly (changes which made most of the original objections obsolete, but which also made the policy a lot weaker than originally intended). I'm not sure how this should be handled, but it's obvious to me that continuing the voting when its object has changed so radically during voting can't produce any meaningful results. --Gutza 10:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: A new vote has been opened for the new version of the policy, please vote here. --Gutza 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I propose eveybody to vote for new usurpation policy (discussed version), which will be used on all projects which don't opt-out. Vote will finish at 15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — VasilievV ² 14:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the duration of the vote to one month — VasilievV ² 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support — VasilievV ² 14:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support (disclaimer: see the history for my involvement in editing this proposed policy). Daniel (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see any GFDL problems. We still have a renaming log, so we can say, who has made an edit. --Obersachse 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Chaos 17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support iAlex 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, see talk page. Furthermore, I believe this matter is not simply a technical, procedural issue, but rather it affects the way we interpret the GFDL license; as such, I strongly believe this is a matter of decision for the WMF, not something the community can decide. We have a renaming log, and we can say who has made an edit -- we're on the inside looking out. How about I change your legal name of my own accord and without your knowledge -- but make sure to write that down somewhere? That's what's being proposed here. Please see the talk page I indicated for a more extensive analysis. --Gutza 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose it as is. The communities should at least be notified and have a chance to opt out before anything be done. I can think of zh-classical: which is very active but has no active bureaucrat. Hillgentleman 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  Of course we will notify local communities. That's not a point — VasilievV ² 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  Then please state it explicitly on the proposal. Stewards should ask the community before any usurpation. You may think that it is obvious now, but there is no guarentee that new stewards who simply look up the policy would not forget this point. Hillgentleman 00:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Gutza played a important point. We can decide about this here? Alex Pereira ^falaê 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral The policy is too unclear in some areas for example when we are saying "Doesn't have any edits in the last year and has fewer then 25 edits total" are we talking globally or just within the particular project? What if a user with username "ExampleUser" (without a SUL) has made 26 edits in Japan Wikipedia within one year and 1 edit in English Wikitionary? Would a "ExampleUser" (with SUL) from another project be able to usurp both usernames or just the one in English Wikitionary? --Sin Harvest 03:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Particular project. Global cannot work because obviously this user doesn't have a gloabl account linked to this username, as the person trying to usurp owns it. As said on the proposal, common sense will be used. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Wouldn't be better to be clear on the outset and have it set in policy? I just have the suspicion that in a few years time this is going to explode out of hand somehow. With people on one hand arguing that this policy grants particular powers and on the other hand other people saying that it doesn't.--Sin Harvest 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support It's a good and useful proposal (although the point that people must have an SUL account is quite superfluous). --Thogo (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Church of emacs 08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Jón 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Mordan ( talk - de - de-talk ) 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiensvay 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support PDD 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• under these conditions  Oppose, although I support it in fact. But. First, just by a chance I saw this voting section, on the usurpation page there is no remark about this voting. Secondly, the wording "which will be used on all projects which don't opt-out" can be understood wrong - when I do not opt out (how and where can I do it???), must I follow it? If you wish so please start a regular voting. -jkb- (cs.source) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Roosa _(Talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very reasonable and commonsense version. Миша13 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- ※   JéRRy   ┼   雨雨   ※  19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Helios 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, Nakon 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support seems sane --Werdan7^{T @} 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support —YourEyesOnly 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Euku 09:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose (25 edits/year, 50 edits/2years, ... can delete relatively active users, which is not acceptable. It would be OK, if these numbers were more like 2edits/year, 4 edits/2years) --Yyy 09:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support; it may be better after changing the duration of point 5 from one week to two weeks. -✉Hello World! 09:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• support, although I'd affect less contributions. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Jordan Busson 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Wuzur 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support James F. (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think the duration of the vote is far too short... and unclear to be made into a policy. There are enough ambiguities in this it cause issues. The scope of this is far too broad to be jumping into it. Bastique ^demandez 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, while I think something like this is badly needed, imho this should not be decided by a few people. At least all projects mailinglists should have been informed and more time should be given to discuss it. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Cary & birdy, sorry - not just a Meta issue --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Note that I already extended the duraion of the voting and made a post to foundation-l — VasilievV ² 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose section 4 isn't allowed under the GFDL. If an account has edits you cannot rename it without it's agreeement or deleteing said edits and any derivatives of them (which if there are say 100 of them and they are 4 years old is unlikely to be practical).Geni 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm with Geni on that one. This argument is also going on in foundation-l about usurps on commons. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I belive this needs to be discussed more before we do these kind of updates. --Kanonkas 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This is a good policy and appropriate for all projects. Bstone 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per Cary, Spacebirdy, Geni and others. - Kaare 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support As it will globally help. --Cream 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I agree this is a good idea. Per cream and bstone e.t.c ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Makes sense. Sunderland06 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - a good solution. -- (cypsy) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Um the GFDL is not subject to the democratic process. The policy as it standands cannot be adopted.Geni 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally -- I've been trying to push this since voting began, but nobody seems to listen. --Gutza 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support -- but does this mean we need to fork the GFDL? Andre (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually we need to break it. --Gutza 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer. I don't know if you are (are you?) but it seems to me you might not be. I suggest we let the legal question be answered by the WMF's legal guy- Mike. Whatever he says is the official position of the WMF and we should follow his opinion. So, who wants to ask? Bstone 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

message inserted post-factumNo, I am indeed not a lawyer -- but I have been advocating for forwarding this to the WMF forever (see the first Oppose above) and nobody listened (see all of the "Aye, seems nice" below that). By all means, do stop this process and forward it to WMF! If the legal teams validates it (which I highly doubt), then we can resume this process. --Gutza 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah it's a standard derivative type question that we deal with all the time. The only franctional complication is that the proposal as it stood would have violated moral rights as well which creates further issues.Geni 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no mainstreme free licenses that would allow this (well other than releaseing work into the public domain).Geni 21:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment - I am in favor of a policy. This one seems fairly well thought out. But I'm not sure this vote at this time is the best vehicle to get it implemented, there might still be loose ends. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support MBisanz 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - per Bastique, it needs more ideas and more input from other wikimedians from the 730 wikis we have since it will affect them the most...--Cometstyles 00:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  IMHO, wikis that don't have bcrat won't have much to say. DarkoNeko 10:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Wikis, that have a bureaucrat, are not affected by this policy (because usurpation requests there will be handled by local bureaucrat). -Yyy 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• neutral. This would be helpful, but, even tho it's a bit more complicated, I'd rather see something among the line of "asking each big wiki (aka thoses with active bcrats) to define the limit they'd allow us to act within". DarkoNeko 09:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support but it doesn't solved any problem with account having bigger edits total... like some account I doesn't want to tell... --Gdgourou 10:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose 150 edits is very much. Something around the 5 would be more appropriate. I'm also concerned by the GFDL issues. 83.81.5.126 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral HyperBroad 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Gostaria de sabre como vai ser em Português.
•  Support Seems reasonable, the SUL needs to move on. Guérin Nicolas     16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Too dangerous, see for example the attack of italians against the Wiki-LMO [[1]]. A big wiki can destroy a little wiki: we can look at this message, for example [[2]] : "Mi pare che pms voglia finire come lmo" = "it seems that PMS would be terminated as LMO". Too dangerous. -- Bobig 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  Who are you? Maybe a sockpuppet used only to vote? Anyway, you need to study Italian or English. See here: «finire male (fig [=in a figurative sense]) to *come to a bad/a sticky end, to *come to grief, to turn out badly, to *go sour, to end in tears». --Nemo 10:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  And mi pare means it seems to me, IMHO (note for non italian-readers.) --Elitre 12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  Moreover, that is irrelevant: this policy does not involve any contrib deletion, so your attack is unintelligible and unfair (just trolling). --Nemo 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated version

[3] — here's another version of usurpation policy. Note that the previous version of the policy is illegal since it doesn't match GFDL requirements (see the talk page; I still want someone from Foundation to clarify this). Thanks — VasilievV ² 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have a concern... we need to get to a version and then have an up and down comment period, all the comments above I think are not quite valid any more as they are commenting on an earlier version. Let's slow down, get a version that most folk think is right, and THEN put it up for approval. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Wait

Absolutely support for this (Lar). As I sated above, the voting is not quite regular if A. it was not announced properly and B. there is no discussed proposal to be voted for. -jkb-  (cs.source) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Wait

I support the updated version, if proposed for vote according to voting policies (some discussion and a new announcement). Jérôme 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am also against this version. See #Notification of the local community below. Hillgentleman 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Wait

All discussion about the legality of the proposals should only be directed at the WMF legal counsel. We are not qualified to discuss the legality of this and it is unethical for people to opine on the legality without the appropriate credentials. Bstone 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Wait

WMF legal staff should get the final call on this. -- Da Punk '95 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Wait

per Lar.--Cato 22:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Notification of the local community

I added that to the proposal. Any objections or comments? — VasilievV ² 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear enough. More than being informed of a usurpation request, the communities should be informed that they can opt out entirely.([4]) Hillgentleman 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

notifications of this vote to locals communities

one of the oppose's reason is that communities are not informed of the current proposal. So, I propose everybody go spread the word about this on their respectives wikis.

Below, add the wikis your spread the info to to the list.

DarkoNeko 09:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• frwiki : fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/5_juin_2008#meta:Metapub.23Usurpation_policy, done by DarkoNeko 09:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• cs.source, 3th June, [5], -jkb- (cs.source) 09:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• pt projects: pt:wp and pt:wn. Alex Pereira ^falaê 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• viwiki: [6], done by Avia 04:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• nlwiki: nl:WP:K#Usurpation_policy. --Erwin(85) 14:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• cawiki, done. --Vriullop 18:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• ro.wiki: ro:MediaWiki:Sitenotice. --Gutza 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Simple English Wikipedia (simple.wikipedia) - done -- Da Punk '95 05:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

GFDL concerns

I think the raised concerned about GFDL violation by just renaming the username should be solved by Experts opinion about copyrights licences .. would anybody who has contact channel with some wikimedia person especially if he is lawyer expert in copyrights to ask him for his opinion ?? --Chaos 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wolof wiktionary

The Wolof Wiktionary is up and running alright. Could somebody please leave a message in this bug: bugzilla:14428 invalidating it? The staus of this should be changed as well.

Please see bugzilla:11512, sorry for not update WM:PCP --Johannes Rohr 11:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Johannes Rohr :) Fortunately it took only one day to unlock it. I'll move the last paragraph of my previous message to a new section. --81.39.199.80 13:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. I see the progress from bugzilla:10707 to bugzilla:11512. As the situation is solved, would not be safer to clearly state it in bugzilla:14428 as well? Or maybe it gets automatically cancelled for the sysops there (sorry if this is a stupid question [I am not totally sure it is not] but I do not know much about the inner cogs and bolts of Bugzilla) in some way I fail to detect? Regards. --81.39.199.80 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why no links to bugzilla with projects already requested to be closed?

I originally left the following comment in the previous section but I am moving it here so that people knowing about it can answer to it. --81.39.199.80 13:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why information about the request for closure of the project in bugzilla is never (or, at least, almost never) attached in the pages of "Proposals for closing projects" once a closure has been decided? Often it is really hard to properly track the history of this kind of cases. Failing to do it keeps information fragmentary, partial and/or unreachable for many. It becomes hermetic or too much for users who are not meta- or bugzilla-savvy. --81.39.199.80 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Save the Siberian Wikipedia!

Please have a look at Save the Siberian Wikipedia. Your comments there will be much appreciated. --SiberianHuskyRyder 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Uma reclamação a fazer

Depois que eu fiz a usurpação de contas eu consigo entrar logado em quase todos os Projetos Wikimedia com exceção do Wikispecies e do Wikimania. Alguém pode consertar isso? Pois outros Projetos pode ter o mesmo problema. HyperBroad 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "After I make the SUL, I can login in almost all Wikimedia projects, with excepition Wikispecies and Wikimania. Somebody can fix this? For other projects may have the same problem" —translated by Alex Pereira ^falaê 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

This is intentional, see bug 14407. Cbrown1023 talk 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Só mais uma coisa: Os usuários do Internet Explorer têm o mesmo problema mas resolveram apenas no Firefox. Esse problema tem conserto? HyperBroad 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "One more thing: Internet Explorer users have the same problems but it is only resolved in FireFox. Does the problem have a solution?" —translated by Monobi (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

Globally hidden usernames should be hidden locally too, and local hiding of usernames should be possible

Dear all,
hiding global accountnames from the global userlist is possible and makes much sense for very insulting accountnames. (eg. containing realnames or accountnames of respected users and living or dead people)
Renaming them only moves the problem to the renamelog (of course better than the userlist).

In bugzilla:14476 the hiding of accountnames had been requested as feature for local projects too. Imho the local hiding should be assigned to local bueraucrats. Also if an accountname is hidden globally it should be hidden in both userlists, not only in the global one.

Please express Your opinion here.

• I do support such a feature. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• I totally agree with birdy :) ..--Cometstyles 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• I agree completely with both these fine people above :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Cbrown1023 talk 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, seems like an excellent suggestion. --MiCkE^d_b 17:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• fully support, -jkb- (cs.source) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely. WjBscribe 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Good and agree --Mardetanha ^talk 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support good idea! --Kanonkas 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree Huji 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -Jorunn 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Would be very welcome. On nlwiki we often have to rename users stalking German sysops. Hiding the names would be better. --Erwin(85) 09:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes please. giggy _(:O) 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - no doubt about it. --FiliP × 13:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Absolutely no reason to oppose this. Majorly ^talk 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support — VasilievV ² 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support it makes a sense. --Aphaia 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Would be useful on EN:WQ.--Cato 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Sounds good. Soxred93 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Meno25 11:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Millosh 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I have a list handy :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Globalização de navegadores web

Os usuários do Internet Explorer, Safari, Opera e outros têm o mesmo problema mas resolveram apenas no Firefox. Esse problema tem conserto? --HyperBroad 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera users have the same problems but it is only solved in FireFox? Does this problem have a solution?" —translated by Monobi (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

SUL Question

I successfully created a unified account on the English Wikipedia a week or two ago. I had one concern, however, that I decided to put off until later; that is, my account at wikimania2007.wikimedia.org was not and is not listed in the "automatically identified"/"automatically merged" accounts. I am quite certain that I my password there is the same (I recall logging into every account to ensure that) - anyways, is there a plan to make accounts from old Wikimania sites merge-able? Or I am I missing something and they are merge-able? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Iamunknown 05:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

wikimania2007 has the SUL extension not installed, thus You can't merge the account there, it is also not possible to create a new account there, best regards, --geimfyglið :^╡ 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see - Special:Version lists the extensions, and Central Auth is not enabled at Wikimedia2007. I guess that makes sense, because otherwise new accounts would have to be created there when people with a unified account visit the site. Okay, thanks for the advice! Cheers, --Iamunknown 06:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Global sysops (poll)

According to the policy proposal, voting for the policy starts at June 16th, 2008 at 00:00 UTC and ends at June 30th, 2008 at 23:59 UTC. For the extensive discussion about the policy proposal, see Talk:Global sysops.

For successful adoption of this policy the following conditions are necessary:

• at least 30 votes in favor;
• at least 80% overall votes in favor, with neutral votes not counting toward the overall total;

Any Wikimedian with at least 500 edits (across all projects) total, and at least 100 edits (across all projects) between January 1 - May 31, 2008 may vote. Voter should have an existing user page at meta with a link to at least one content project. Comments are welcome from all, but those not qualifying to vote, will not have their votes counted.

Support

1.  Support. Additional measures to combat vandalism on smaller wikis would be quite helpful, and I see no serious wikisovereignty issues for the bigger projects. This will provide a large net benefit to Wikimedia. --Rory096 01:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
2.  Support. Potentially useful policy. As per Rory096. Yamakiri 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
3.  Support - Big wikis may not like this, but wikimedia has 700+ wikis interest in hand and this will benefit them a lot..--Cometstyles 01:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
4.  Support - it will help the small wikis, and I'm sure it can be disabled on some larger wikis... Monobi (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
5.  Support This would help the SWMT and other vandal fighters incredibly and I find the opposes (both below and on the talk page) to not have a strong enough reason (if any) for an oppose. Cbrown1023 talk 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
6.  Support Definitely. This would really benefit the SWMT and lessen the amount of work that is put on stewards. --Az1568 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
7.  Support The smaller wikis can really use the help Dbiel 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
8. --Nemo 06:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
9.  Support Beau (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
10.  Support Thunderhead 06:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
11.  Support SatuSuro 06:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - I agree that there should be a technical opt-out for the wikis that wish it (simply because I believe in choice) but I also believe this position is of greater importance to the smaller wikis than to let the larger wikis' fears prevent it from adoption. These sysops will have the trust of two communities before they are even eligible for global sysop and I am certain that the voters participating in these nominations will be extremely discerning when choosing global sysops. No single wiki should fear that someone is going to use global sysop-ship to gain access to deleted contributions for the purpose disseminating them because it would be far easier for any individual with such intent to just go through adminship at the local wiki level than through the global sysop process. This project will always be susceptible to abuse, but fear of that shouldn't prevent better operation across the whole of the project. --DeadEyeArrow 07:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
13. This is something that would be a very important benefit to smaller wikis & non quite so small wikis. It would help some of the active cross wiki folk to deal with vandalism in a far more efficient way. I realise with the might of en wp getting peeved (most of whom have little idea about smaller wikis, SWMT etc etc) this may not get through without an opt out. However we are talking about a right for people who are already well skilled with the tools & tasks necessary. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I cannot support this until there is a technical implementation to restrict privilege use to wikis with few-to-none administrators only. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Toes will be trodden on, there's no way of knowing how large a community is until you're part of it - at which point you can get a local sysop-hood anyway. Conrad.Irwin 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Er, isn't that why that list of wikis sorted by size and number of admins, etc. was created? I'd expect that any projects that explicitly chose not to have global sysop interference would also be put in a special section on that list, so global sysops shouldn't screw up and use their tools on a project where they're not allowed (and the fact that they'll be autodeglobalsysopped if they do seems like a pretty good incentive to keep them from doing so). --Rory096 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Is this exclusion-from-interference list extant? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Global sysops/Wikis and Global sysops/Small and large wikis. They're not designed to be quite as black and white as I'd like, but I would expect that to improve as projects pass policies regarding global sysops. --Rory096 02:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Until Wikis can opt out at a technical level from Global Sysops being able to perform an action and until viewing deleted contribs is separated from restoring accidentally deleted pages. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Toes may be trodden on in a larger community; I see this as mainly for websites not big enough to have an active community with a sufficient amount of administrators. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   They will never be able to opt out technically, that is not something that we'd want them to be able to... we do not want to restrict any global group. Also, tbh, I think the whole worrying about deleted contributions to be a little crazy... it's not that big of deal, these people are going to be trusted as is. Cbrown1023 talk 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

4. At a minimum until wikis are able to opt out. I think the general issue of allowing any editor to "patrol" for vandalism in a language they don't understand is problematic. Perhaps a rewritten proposal with more attention to limiting the opportunity for error and abuse, in addition to a clearer definition of the role of these global sysops, would be something I could support. Avruch 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Do you realize that we already patrol wikis for vandalism in languages we do not understand? See SWMT and #cvn-sw... this will just make our lives easier. Wikis can already opt out, see Global sysops/Wikis and Global sysops/Small and large wikis. Cbrown1023 talk 04:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was referring to a technical opt-out, which you say above will never happen. I'm aware that folks patrol for vandalism, but the potential damage from an error is limited to what any editor (and vandal) can accomplish. The characteristics of a small wiki that make a global sysop seem necessary also make it unlikely that errors and other problems from global sysops will be noted in a timely manner. Large wikis will notice a global sysop screwup right away, but at the same time they have no need for global sysops in the first place. I'd like to see a global log of all actions by global sysops, and I'd like to see them technically limited to wikis below a certain threshold of activity, and I think limiting them to rollback and delete should be considered. Once SUL is universal the need for the ability to block on each project could be obviated - a clear vandal could simply be globally blocked by one meta admin. Just some thoughts. I think the poll on this proposal is probably premature - why does it need to go from proposed to voted upon in barely more than two weeks? Avruch 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Certainly not. The above users, especially Conrad Irwin, have said it well. — Dan | talk 04:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I will oppose this until there is a software mechanism to opt-out large wikis. Any claim that this is not 'technically possible' is pure hogwash. --MZMcBride 05:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Until opt-out is technically available. giggy _(:O) 05:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
8. There is no real way I can see justifying global privileges like that. It's too much risk of abuse of power, let alone other concerns. --Neskaya 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
9. The opt out capability (at the software level) for established communities is mandatory. And I mean opt out in advance of the first grant of global sysop privileges. Anywhere that there is an editing community, that community has autonomy over the shape and content of their work, and there is absolutely no guarantee that someone from another project will understand or abide by local policy; if that person is given sysop privileges witout having had any previous interaction with that community, this simply exacerbates the situation. And it's not just a matter of local policy; it's a matter of the community dynamic, which may be wildly different from that of the sysop's home project(s). As someone involed in several non-wikipedia projects in two languages, I'm speaking from direct observation. Assume good faith, all well and good; but many people do *not* wait to learn what the local community is like before leaping in and making decisions (and yes, some of those hasty folks have been sysops elsewhere). -- ArielGlenn 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose The points made above about the lack of a mechanism to opt-out a wiki make this a deal-breaker as is. OverlordQ 05:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Opppose. 24.29.228.33 (en:WP User:Badagnani) 05:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
12. I really like the idea, but like others, I would also like to see an opt-out option. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose as premature. This can happen only after: 1) The technical infrastructure is in place, 2) Individual wikis have opted in. Personally, I would prefer that the big wikis with enough administrators explicitly stay out of such a scheme for at least 6 months after it starts in earnest. Let those small Wikis who need such a service come up with a policy that works for them and let them have a few months to tweak it. Counterproposal - pick a small number of smallish Wikis to run a common sysop scheme as an experiment for 3 months. If it works, gradually invite other smallish Wikis in. After that is stable, revisit inviting larger Wikis in. Davidwr 05:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose per ArielGlenn. The points he brings up are quite valid.--Rockfang 06:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Not just because of the ability for wikis to opt-out (which I think is essential) but because I also feel the process is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Just look at the requirements to attain global sysop status: 6 months at Meta and two other content projects, 5,000 total edits, 1,000 edits at one content wiki, 100 edits at a second content wiki, 100 edits at Meta, 50 edits at Meta in 2 months, 50 edits on two different projects within the last month, and administrator, bureaucrat or checkuser status on at least two projects, with one a content project. Frankly, that part of the policy is ludicrous -- if there's going to be voting on the candidates anyway, what's the need to introduce so many complicated rules when voters can weed out candidates themselves? I cannot and will not support a policy that introduces unnecessary bureaucracy, and can be easily gamed. To a lesser extent, I also feel that the process is becoming "steward-lite". Ral315 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I would greatly prefer to see technical opt-out. Daniel (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
2. While I understand there is a need, I think the proposal has turned more from "anti-vandalism" to "steward-lite." I also think there needs to be a technical opt-out system. Right now we seem to be allowing projects to set their own policy regarding this. Are global sysops going to have to consult/memorize a list of wikis with local policies before taking any action on a project? I also don't like that small wikis don't seem to be able to opt-out. I think if a small wiki can get enough people (more than a handful) to vote and decide that they don't want global sysops, then they should be able to opt-out. Mr.Z-man 06:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
3. I to would like a technical opt-out system. Mr.Z-man has left a good comment above. --MiCkE^d_b 08:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

1. ...