On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:25 AM, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What I would want to see is the granting of global
adminship for a selective
list of wikis. For example wikis with less than 1000 articles. it isn't
stewards job to RC patrol inactive/tiny wikis.
Maybe full adminship, maybe just rollback+delete/undelete. Also, I
think that users should get such right via simple process, same as RfA
for Meta admins.
I hole heartedly support global checkuser rights to
stewards. Complicating
our ability to deal with interwiki trolls, vandals and other pets is of no
benefit to us. Stewards will be more than pleased to let local checkusers to
handle non-interwiki tasks. Let's minimize the bureaucracy for a change.
I support global CU rights for all CUs. All of those persons are
identified to WMF, which means that all of them are trusting
contributors. So, I don't see a reason why not to give them global
rights, as well as a software possibility to compare instantly edits
on all wikis. This may help a lot in fight against cross-wiki abusive
users.
I also support selective global bureaucratship for
wikis who either do not
have a bureaucrat or the bureaucrat they have is inactive (does not have any
edit in the past +30 days). Stewards handle bureaucratship related tasks on
such wikis anyways.
I think that we need only global bureaucrats for [interwiki] bots for
now. (For both: granting and removing access to the permissions.) They
may be chosen at the similar way as anti-vandal fighters.
Giving admin/bureaucrat/CU/etc rights is still a completely acceptable
task for stewards. For example, I am subscribed to Requests for
permissions via Atom feed. During the first days of my stewardship I
wanted to do promptly my job. However, as I had 1 hour of refresh
time, I was usually too late for any task.
*But*, if we decide to have some other kinds of global permissions, it
is possible that we will need bureaucrats for more tasks. +10-20
stewards per year may be not sustainable growth.