Hello,
Stewards can now create and edit global groups[1]. Users assigned to these groups will have the groups' rights on all public Wikimedia wikis. For example, a user in the 'global rollback' group could use the 'rollback' feature on all Wikimedia wikis. However, stewards will not create or assign these groups without community consensus.
I propose the creation of a global rollback group. This would be very useful for members of the small wiki monitoring team[2] and other users involved in multiple-wiki countervandalism. We will also need objective criteria for its assignment; I suggest elected administrator access on at least one public Wikimedia wiki, and evidence of activity in multiple-wiki countervandalism (like links to contributions on multiple wikis).
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_handbook#Adjusting_global_groups_.26_... [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_Wiki_Monitoring_Team
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Stewards can now create and edit global groups[1]. Users assigned to these groups will have the groups' rights on all public Wikimedia wikis. For example, a user in the 'global rollback' group could use the 'rollback' feature on all Wikimedia wikis. However, stewards will not create or assign these groups without community consensus.
I propose the creation of a global rollback group. This would be very useful for members of the small wiki monitoring team[2] and other users involved in multiple-wiki countervandalism. We will also need objective criteria for its assignment; I suggest elected administrator access on at least one public Wikimedia wiki, and evidence of activity in multiple-wiki countervandalism (like links to contributions on multiple wikis).
I think that Pedro's approach is better: those users should get right to delete page (as well to undelete if they make a mistake; or it is not necessary?), too. Vandals and spammers are making new pages, too and those pages should be deleted.
Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Pedro's approach is better: those users should get right to delete page (as well to undelete if they make a mistake; or it is not necessary?), too. Vandals and spammers are making new pages, too and those pages should be deleted.
I proposed rollback-only because faster reverting probably isn't controversial, but being able to delete and restore pages on all wikis (including large wikis like en-Wikipedia) is probably much more controversial. That's technically possible too, if there is community consensus to do it.
Hoi, What methods do we have to find community consensus. How is it defined, to what extend can a single project prevent a resolution to a question. Would such a position have to be based on arguments or just on say so?
This is yet another situation where a project council would prove to be invaluable. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard < pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Pedro's approach is better: those users should get right to delete page (as well to undelete if they make a mistake; or it is not necessary?), too. Vandals and spammers are making new pages, too and those pages should be deleted.
I proposed rollback-only because faster reverting probably isn't controversial, but being able to delete and restore pages on all wikis (including large wikis like en-Wikipedia) is probably much more controversial. That's technically possible too, if there is community consensus to do it.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Pedro's approach is better: those users should get right to delete page (as well to undelete if they make a mistake; or it is not necessary?), too. Vandals and spammers are making new pages, too and those pages should be deleted.
I proposed rollback-only because faster reverting probably isn't controversial, but being able to delete and restore pages on all wikis (including large wikis like en-Wikipedia) is probably much more controversial. That's technically possible too, if there is community consensus to do it.
Delete/undelete rights are not a bid deal. There are persons at developed projects which take care about deleting and undeleting pages. The rule added for covering this issue may be very simple: using those rights at projects with regularly active administrators will be sanctioned by removing rights immediately. I think that it is fair enough and that every reasonable Wikimedian may agree with such rules.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 2:45 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Delete/undelete rights are not a bid deal. There are persons at developed projects which take care about deleting and undeleting pages. The rule added for covering this issue may be very simple: using those rights at projects with regularly active administrators will be sanctioned by removing rights immediately. I think that it is fair enough and that every reasonable Wikimedian may agree with such rules.
Delete and undelete rights may very well be controversial, particularly on the English Wikipedia, where some deleted revisions that are not strictly "personal information", but may very well need to stay private, can be viewed by administrators. Perhaps the users are trusted globally, but this could be a serious concern, potentially.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Delete and undelete rights may very well be controversial, particularly on the English Wikipedia, where some deleted revisions that are not strictly "personal information", but may very well need to stay private, can be viewed by administrators. Perhaps the users are trusted globally, but this could be a serious concern, potentially.
To expand on my point as well, viewing deleted revisions is one of the few controversial administrative tasks that is not logged publicly, so this is even more of a concern.
2008/5/29 Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Delete and undelete rights may very well be controversial, particularly on the English Wikipedia, where some deleted revisions that are not strictly "personal information", but may very well need to stay private, can be viewed by administrators. Perhaps the users are trusted globally, but this could be a serious concern, potentially.
To expand on my point as well, viewing deleted revisions is one of the few controversial administrative tasks that is not logged publicly, so this is even more of a concern.
And abuse of it is the entire reason Oversight exists.
- d.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:32 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/29 Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Delete and undelete rights may very well be controversial, particularly on the English Wikipedia, where some deleted revisions that are not strictly "personal information", but may very well need to stay private, can be viewed by administrators. Perhaps the users are trusted globally, but this could be a serious concern, potentially.
To expand on my point as well, viewing deleted revisions is one of the few controversial administrative tasks that is not logged publicly, so this is even more of a concern.
And abuse of it is the entire reason Oversight exists.
Thanks, David. I was willing to say "than make the oversight action for problematic cases", but I was doubtful :)
The number of SWMT members will not reach 100 soon. There are 21 active members, including maybe 10 stewards. English Wikipedia has ~1500 admins and I am sure that 20-30 (1-2%) are not a big deal. Also, keep in mind that members of SWMT group are usually well known Wikimedians which passed much stronger criteria than for being an admin of one project (even the project is en.wp); usually, those persons are admins, bureaucrats etc. on more than one project, including Meta, too.
Yes, well, I don't think this is as awesome as some people seem to.
I don't object to it, but the criteria for people to get it need to be strict. They should already have sysop access at at least one LARGE project, as well as other projects.
Thus, the fact that I have sysop privelages on several smaller Wikis does not mean that I can suddenly get this privelage to rollback on en.wp too, although Jesse is right that rollback isn't a big deal.
Mark
2008/5/29 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:32 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/29 Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Delete and undelete rights may very well be controversial, particularly on the English Wikipedia, where some deleted revisions that are not strictly "personal information", but may very well need to stay private, can be viewed by administrators. Perhaps the users are trusted globally, but this could be a serious concern, potentially.
To expand on my point as well, viewing deleted revisions is one of the few controversial administrative tasks that is not logged publicly, so this is even more of a concern.
And abuse of it is the entire reason Oversight exists.
Thanks, David. I was willing to say "than make the oversight action for problematic cases", but I was doubtful :)
The number of SWMT members will not reach 100 soon. There are 21 active members, including maybe 10 stewards. English Wikipedia has ~1500 admins and I am sure that 20-30 (1-2%) are not a big deal. Also, keep in mind that members of SWMT group are usually well known Wikimedians which passed much stronger criteria than for being an admin of one project (even the project is en.wp); usually, those persons are admins, bureaucrats etc. on more than one project, including Meta, too.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, well, I don't think this is as awesome as some people seem to.
I don't object to it, but the criteria for people to get it need to be strict. They should already have sysop access at at least one LARGE project, as well as other projects.
Thus, the fact that I have sysop privelages on several smaller Wikis does not mean that I can suddenly get this privelage to rollback on en.wp too, although Jesse is right that rollback isn't a big deal.
One large project, inlcuding Meta (it is not fair to demand from a contributor to some small wiki to become an admin of en.wp [or other lingua franca project from their region]). What does "large project" mean is another issue. 100 very active contributors?
Let's try to formulate needs, which would be included into some draft.
Also, delete/undelete is not a big deal, too. The most problematic admin permission is a possibility to block a contributor.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:32 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And abuse of it is the entire reason Oversight exists.
Oh, of course. But some oversights have, I think, been reluctant to use oversight in borderline cases because doing so has been grounds for removal of oversight access in a few cases, and it's not entirely clear if that's still the case today. Thus, these borderline cases aren't always oversighted, and if they're not, then viewing the deleted revisions is definitely controversial.
Again, I'm not arguing that SWMT isn't trusted; I'm saying in general that it's problematic to argue that delete/undelete isn't a big deal.
Delete/undelete rights are not a bid deal. There are persons at developed projects which take care about deleting and undeleting pages. The rule added for covering this issue may be very simple: using those rights at projects with regularly active administrators will be sanctioned by removing rights immediately. I think that it is fair enough and that every reasonable Wikimedian may agree with such rules.
How would you determine whether the wp in question has active admins? For instance, does tt.wp has active admins? I am not sure I would like to have my rights removed for rolling vandal edits back on one of the projects I did not see any admin edits for 30 days and then it turns out that I just did not notice smth. We are obviously not talking of large projects like en.wp or fr.wp., but of smth below 10K pages.
Cheers Yaroslav
This is kind of the system I think would be best - privelages at all Wikis *under* a certain size, or all Wikis without active admins. I don't know if this is possible.
Mark
2008/5/29 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Delete/undelete rights are not a bid deal. There are persons at developed projects which take care about deleting and undeleting pages. The rule added for covering this issue may be very simple: using those rights at projects with regularly active administrators will be sanctioned by removing rights immediately. I think that it is fair enough and that every reasonable Wikimedian may agree with such rules.
How would you determine whether the wp in question has active admins? For instance, does tt.wp has active admins? I am not sure I would like to have my rights removed for rolling vandal edits back on one of the projects I did not see any admin edits for 30 days and then it turns out that I just did not notice smth. We are obviously not talking of large projects like en.wp or fr.wp., but of smth below 10K pages.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I proposed something similar too. Tiny/Inactive wikis need special attention. Larger ones do not need such an attention. Stweards should be able to grant global statuses with the ability of giving exceptions.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
This is kind of the system I think would be best - privelages at all Wikis *under* a certain size, or all Wikis without active admins. I don't know if this is possible.
Mark
2008/5/29 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Delete/undelete rights are not a bid deal. There are persons at developed projects which take care about deleting and undeleting pages. The rule added for covering this issue may be very simple: using those rights at projects with regularly active administrators will be sanctioned by removing rights immediately. I think that it is fair enough and that every reasonable Wikimedian may agree with such rules.
How would you determine whether the wp in question has active admins? For instance, does tt.wp has active admins? I am not sure I would like to
have
my rights removed for rolling vandal edits back on one of the projects I did not see any admin edits for 30 days and then it turns out that I just did not notice smth. We are obviously not talking of large projects like en.wp or fr.wp., but of smth below 10K pages.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Delete/undelete rights are not a bid deal. There are persons at developed projects which take care about deleting and undeleting pages. The rule added for covering this issue may be very simple: using those rights at projects with regularly active administrators will be sanctioned by removing rights immediately. I think that it is fair enough and that every reasonable Wikimedian may agree with such rules.
How would you determine whether the wp in question has active admins? For instance, does tt.wp has active admins? I am not sure I would like to have my rights removed for rolling vandal edits back on one of the projects I did not see any admin edits for 30 days and then it turns out that I just did not notice smth. We are obviously not talking of large projects like en.wp or fr.wp., but of smth below 10K pages.
The point of the rule is not to prohibit anti-vandal fighter to fight against vandals on, let's say lv.wp at early morning in Latvian time zone (a couple of weeks ago stewards from USA took care about lv.wp and allowed to a lv.wp admin to go to sleep), but to prohibit actions at projects like en.wp, de.wp or fr.wp are. In other words: you may have delete/undelete button at en.wp, but don't use it if you don't have it granted by en.wp community.
So, the part of the day matters on many projects, too. The rule shouldn't be negatively strict, but it should be strict against abuse of the permissions.
2008/5/29 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I think that Pedro's approach is better: those users should get right to delete page (as well to undelete if they make a mistake; or it is not necessary?), too. Vandals and spammers are making new pages, too and those pages should be deleted.
They all need blocking. In the end, we might as well give the whole set out.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2008/5/29 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
I think that Pedro's approach is better: those users should get right to delete page (as well to undelete if they make a mistake; or it is not necessary?), too. Vandals and spammers are making new pages, too and those pages should be deleted.
They all need blocking. In the end, we might as well give the whole set out.
With central blocking feature this is not so necessary. A couple of persons (stewards) may cover that. If it is possible to categorize block (like: "open proxy", "dynamic IP" etc.), it would be possible to make some exceptions (for open proxies at some projects). However, there is a permission "bypass open proxy restriction", which may be given to users from countries which filter access to Wikipedia.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org