Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2008-07

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 ^(messages) 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)

•  Oppose Not sure what I am voting on: this version is clearly illegal. This version is not so bad, but assumes that edits that were reverted quickly thereby are vandalism? That is not a workable definition. - Brya 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --buecherwuermlein 13:40, 18 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)

•  Wait

Lar puts it well. -- Avi 04:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well the local community advert got me here, but it's not clear whether there's something concrete to vote on yet. The current version sounds OK to me, but if it's still being discussed shouldn't this vote be closed until things are more resolved. As it is people have continued to vote above after this new section was created, so it's no longer clear what they were voting for. Is legal advice being sought? Really this is a bit of a mess and I vote for closing the vote and starting again! ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 10:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support We have a more restrictive version of the policy that surely met the legal requirements. It is certainly better than no policy. We need any policy yesterday(then SULs were adopted). Lets adopt the changed version. If the less restrictive policy would be rendered legal then we can vote the less restricted policy but at least we would have some policy meanwhile Alex Bakharev 04:30, 25 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 local 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)
• ga.wiki: ga:MediaWiki:Sitenotice - ga.wikti: wikt:ga:MediaWiki:Sitenotice - Alison ^❤ 08:16, 21 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).

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).

Do we know what problem this is referring to?  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See Metapub#Uma reclamação a fazer -- Avi 14:48, 17 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) (closed)

The poll is closed and no further votes will be accepted.
The poll indicates the version of this proposal under consideration failed to gain consensus.

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. Voters should have an existing user page at meta with a link to at least one content project. Comments are welcome from all, but votes from those who do not meet the requirements as stated will be discounted.

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)
14. Support - Magalhães 09:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
15.  Support. I was originally skeptic of this proposal, but if stewards are trigger-happy in removing those users who abuse global privileges in larger wikis, that suffices for me. If a particular wiki doesn't want them, there's the Global sysops/Wikis subpage where individual communities can post "Do not disturb" signs for global sysops. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
16.  Support. I have passing experience with almost overwhelming problems encountered by a small wiki from spammers and just plain confused users. I understand this to be a measure for those users that specialize in administrating small wikis, per Small Wiki Monitoring Team, and the requirement for Meta participation thus makes sense. I trust prospective global sysops realize the consequences if you try to run roughshod over an established community or violate the terms at Global sysops/Wikis. - BanyanTree 09:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
17.  Support - Keeping with the objections raised below, I think it's still a good idea. As pointed out above, there should be mechanisms to prevent global sysop intervention when specifically denied by a project and of course all global sysops should consider the rules of the wiki they are interfering with --SoWhy 10:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
18.  Support - as a wikimedia commons admin, this would make my job a hell of a lot easier as we would be able to see deleted images to see whether they ever had useful information which wasn't transferred across. Yes, big wikis won't like this, but big wikis don't like anything because there are enough people that there is always someone willing to be very vocal opposing an idea. Mattbuck 10:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
19.  Support (as a proposer) --Millosh 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
20.  Support --Cradel 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
21.  Support --GerardM 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
22.  Support iAlex 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
23.  Support --Yaroslav Blanter 13:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
24.  Support --MF-W 14:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
25.  Support after bug 14556 has been submitted, there is no objection, -jkb- (cs.source) 14:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
26.  Support Why not simplify the whole system. Interwiki collaboration is in terrific state now.--Kozuch 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
27.  Support --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
28.  Support Without this system, a lot of wikis will be under-patrolled. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
29.  Support Excellent idea - Icairns 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
30.  Support - this is clearly a sensible way to manage the maintenance of small projects. Use on a large project would lead to suspension of the right so I don't think a technical opt out is needed. I am disappointed that small projects may miss out on the benefits of this right due to opposition mainly from one large project - I don't think this aids inter-project relations or does much for the global perception of enwiki. WjBscribe 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
31.  Support - Trevor MacInnis 15:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
32.  Support - only high quality admins would be able to survive the nomination process. We already trust these people for other major projects, so why not trust them at a global level? Royalbroil 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Great idea: it will help clean-up and reduce unnoticed vandalism on the smaller Wikis. Acalamari 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
34.  Support upon the condition that large wikis with enough local admins be allowed to opt out. My opinion is similar to Messedrocker's in the Oppose section, but I recognize that this feature will be developed. Until then, local policies like w:en:Wikipedia:Global rights usage should govern the use of their rights on those wikis. Nihiltres^(t.u) 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
35. No one will use their rights on the big 'pedias, and if they do, they'll quickly lose them. A technical opt-out method might be nice, but there'll be no trouble either way, methinks. --Conti 18:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
36.  Support with the understanding that larger wikis with a sufficient number of sysops will not be affected. Vandalism and spam can be a problem on smaller wikis, and I have wished I or someone else could do something about it without involving bureaucracy. Grandmasterka 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
37.  Support with the obvious get-outs per wiki as necessary. James F. (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Contingent on the opt-out implementations, which have been committed to. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks! :) --Millosh 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

39.  Support per many of the above comments; plenty of the smaller wikis do need help, and this seems to be a pretty good way to provide it. The members of those wikis can of course decide for themselves to what degree the global sysops can act (rollback only, protect and block, etc.). My only concern is that global sysops should be monitored to ensure they're following consensus on each wiki. Parsecboy 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
40.  Support - This should help out some of the smaller wikis. NuclearWarfare 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
41.  Support - Agree w/ Cometstyles. Cirt 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
42.  Support - Necessary to address cross-wiki harassment in a timely manner. Durova 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
43.  Support - I encourage lots of folks to monitor activity (especially early on) to ensure that the program is what we really want. --141.174.97.231 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) gah, logged in to vote. --Rocksanddirt 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
44.  Support - I have every reason to believe the opt out would be implemented before this was put into practice. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
45.  Support I have seen many smaller wikis destroyed because of vandalism. This will help stop it. Mm40 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
46.  Support Big time - David Gerard 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
47.  Support, assuming that they will not have any sysop rights on those wikis that don't want them. (I don't believe this actually requires any changes to the software: AFAIK, the devs can already configure the rights assigned to each user group on a per-wiki basis.) --Ilmari Karonen 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Absolutely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

     Support - No doubt. 75.183.127.68 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Only registered users can vote. Nemo 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

49. Support - looks ok.   jj137 ^♠ 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
50.  Support Very useful. --Werdan7^{T @} 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
51.  Support I do see potentials for abuse, however I have enough trust in the admin selection process that I doubt such abuse will occur. Nar Matteru 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
52.  Support Support and yes it's an excellent idea. Bstone 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
53.  Support This would be a boon to small wikis. Firefoxman 00:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

     Support I was reassured by the restrictions. 87.194.39.154 01:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Only registered users can vote. Nemo 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

54.  Support: restrictions can be added later, fear of possible "abuse" is unfounded. -AlexSm 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
55.  Support, with the caveat that I would prefer a longer approval period (two weeks or a month perhaps) rather than a week. Would also like a way to make these kinds of nominations higher profile so they could receive added scrutiny by all projects. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
56.  Support--_~Innv^s: 03:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
57.  Support, with some reservations. I think the policy could still use some work; I worry that this is being pushed through very aggressively by a single user; and I think we need to get increased cross-wiki input (though we do have already the opinions of those who do this work, which are most valuable). With that much said, this policy does have some shortcomings (I am not particularly happy with the editcountitis requirements, for example), but is in an acceptable state. The principle is fine; the idea is great(!) but the proposal is not as good as it could be. In determining any outcome from this, we need to take into account what amounts to canvassing - on the other hand, I think we do need cross-wiki input, especially from non-WP and non-en projects (Is this not what the global sitenotice is for?). Lastly, while defining groups of wikis for which you can define user groups with certain permissions to which you can add global users might be all the rage, social policies should be the primary method of enforcing these things. There's no need to be paranoid about a cross-wiki rampage; we're all acutely aware that this is a serious undertaking, and I have no doubt that the first RFP will set the bar higher than is strictly necessary deliberately to counter this. So while this may be implemented in the future, I see it as quite a misunderstanding of the issues to focus on technical implementation as a check on behaviour.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
58.  Support. Grandmaster 07:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
59. Support — This is a fine idea and about 2 years overdue. I don't expect that there will be serious issues with abuse of this (and any cases will be dealt with). Nakal cross-wiki shite is on the rise;^{[7] [8] [9]}. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
60.  Support SynergeticMaggot 09:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
61. support —DerHexer (Talk) 10:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
62. --Euku 10:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
63. Less maintenance work for the stewards. Yay. DarkoNeko 10:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
64. JacobH 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Good for the vulnerable small wiki's.
65. Kusma 11:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
66. Willemo 11:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
67.  Support necessary and useful --Gdgourou 12:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

     Support 89.243.255.205 21:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Only registered users can vote. Nemo 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

68.  Support - from neutral, since opt-out will be a technical function (hopefully). --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
69.  Support Finnrind 12:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
70.  Support - I don't understand the 80%-rule. So we never can change things, we ever will have a block minority. Marcus Cyron 12:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

     Support - This would actually work. I fully support this. 116.71.34.72 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Only registered users can vote. Nemo 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

71.  Support --Alex S.H. Lin 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
72.  Support - it seems that a lot of user do not understand the purpose of this functionality: it is there to be able to respond on mass-vandalism on small projects where no sysops are present to respond to. Romaine 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
73.  Support - Needed for smaller projects. Impact on the larger projects is minimal anyways. Prashanthns 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
74. Ucucha 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Opt-out would be preferable, but I think the advantages of improving vandalism fighting on smaller wikis outweigh the risks that a global sysop will use his privileges on a large wiki.
75.  Support: From the point of view of a Commons admin who cares about image duplicates a global adminship makes a lot of sense. Imagelinks could be fixed even on protected pages, and the version histories of transfered and already deleted images could be checked fast and easy. --32X 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Those tasks are not related to vandalism fighting, so I don't think that would be allowed according to the policy? /Ö 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    Some people have the opinion, that deleting still used images is a kind of vandalism. --32X 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

76.  Support: - Robotje 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
77.  Support - JoJan 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
78. Support There are serious issues with inactive admins on the smaller, more obscure projects (chr: is a case in point). The bar for global admins should be set sufficiently high that they are qualified, i.e., they will respect local policy and local consensus, if existent. --Wikiacc | (talk) (en.w | en.w.t) 16:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
79.  Support - Wammes Waggel 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
80.  SupportDendodge 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
81.  Support As i saw below most of the oposser had a conditional vote which opt-out .so i think after the bug fixed they will take back their vote.--Mardetanha ^talk 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
82.  Support --Dodo von den Bergen 23:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
83.  Support ~XarBioGeek ^(talk) 01:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
84.  Support - I can see some potential for problems but it's probably worth the trouble, all said. Shereth 02:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
85.  Support MoiraMoira 07:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
86.  Support Lycaon 07:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
87.  Support - but I really want to see an opt-out policy for small wikis, in the interests of fairness and choice - Alison ^❤ 08:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Everybody will be happy to see that one small wiki became a mature one. Until that, they are under stewards' patronage, and global sysops should be here to help to stewards. --Millosh 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    "under stewards' patronage" — That indeed is something new to me, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Just to mention that we (Spacebirdy and I) are talking now about this issue at IRC :) --Millosh 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

88.  Support --alexscho 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
89.  Support --·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
90.  Support - if you are not fit to be an admin on all wikis, you aren't fit to be an admin on any wiki. ugen64 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
91.  Support We are OK on EN:WQ now but at one time we had to keep calling in stewards to deal with vandals. This proposal would have been very helpful to us then.--Cato 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
92.  Support Responsible admins can be of assistance on more than merely that Wiki on which they usually edit. Irresponsible admins will be, I think, rare and easily noticed, in any case. Perhaps a tag on a user name exercising such a privilege to make its global context use easier to see?. When away from the wiki on which one has the most edits? Good idea. Ww 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
93.  Support as an opt-in/opt-out option with automatic opt-in after a reasonable period of time if there is no decision, and opt-out anytime - Since this only affects smaller wikis, I see no problem with implementing it. I do think it should be opt-in, but with an automatic opt-in on projects that do not make a conscious decision about opting. In other words, each project should make a decision at the local level to opt-in or opt-out within a reasonable time (say a month). If the project is apathetic or too argumentative to reach any decision, then the decision is made automatically for them after the time expires. Later in the project's life, they should be able to rescind that decision and opt-out if they have grown to a point where they can responsibly maintain their own project. Regardless, I support this change. (And, yes, I'm very active on the English Wikipedia--some of us actually read things instead of freaking out and opposing good changes.) --Willscrlt (Talk) 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
94.  Support with or without technical opt-out. Global sysops can be trusted not to mess with the larger wikis even if it does remain technically possible. Angela 16:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
95.  Support Alex Pereira ^falaê 17:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
96.  Support Chris 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
97.  Support As an admin on en:W, i understand that this is usefull and does not apply to the English WP. --Bduke 06:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
98.  Support ken123 16:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
99.  Support Kameraad Pjotr 09:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
100.  Support, opt-in preferred, but it's hard to imagine someone ascending to such a post who would not be trusted to be an admin on most any individual project. BD2412 T 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
101.  Support VIGNERON * ^discut. 12:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
102.  Support. Opt-out would be preferred for the larger wikis with a sufficient amount of admins. bibliomaniac15 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
103.  Support Give the proper tools to those needing them Platonides 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
104.  Support --Pietrodn · talk with me 15:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
105.  Support Should be useful to patrol and help smaller wikis. Some centralisation will improve efficiency. --Oldak Quill 17:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
106.  Support--penubag 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
107.  Support — E ^talk 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
108.  Support, Seems like a sensible way to help combat vandalism on smaller wikis. Craig Franklin 10:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC).
109.  Support, of course. This mechanism seems to be a good way to free stewards from some routine work. Kv75 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
110.  Support as per above. -- Aka 19:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
111.  Support - I know this vote is never going to go through, but I support it nonetheless. A lot of comment I have heard are along the lines of "Elect local admins. If there isn't anybody worth enough, there is no point of the wiki existing." Is that even a serious comment? So basically we are going to destroy communities and make them essentially nonfunctional, just because they do not have any worthy admins? Does anybody see how ridiculous that is? Communities may not have possible admins at a given time if they have just started out. We cannot expect every community to instantly have enough people worthy of adminship. We have to give each community time to develop. But until that point, the community has absolutely nothing, except help from stewards, and sometimes temporary admins. This policy would help to distribute power better, instead of forcing a small team of stewards to take on everything. Of course, if this means increasing the requirement, go ahead. Because at a certain point, a user who meets really high standards would not be "power-hungry" or anything I have heard in the oppose section. Parent5446 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
112.  Support - It can be very useful. Xenus 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
113.  Support as per above. --Kaaveh Ahangar 02:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

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)

(This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 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)

2.  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)

3. 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)

   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Certainly not. The above users, especially Conrad Irwin, have said it well. — Dan | talk 04:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
5. 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)
   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Until opt-out is technically available. giggy _(:O) 05:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   OK, I'm happy to indent my vote until that bug is resolved... please ping my talk page when something happens there and I'll take another look. giggy _(:O) 04:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

6. 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)
7. 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)
   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
8. 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)
   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Opppose. Badagnani 02:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
10. 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)
11. 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)
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Nope. Premature. Show me the money. Or rather the code in action. I will say that I am in favor of allowing two or more wikis, or even "all but one wiki," giving cross-permissions if it is the will of all the wikis concerned. To put it another way: I'm voting no on the proposal, but not because I'm absolutely against the idea. Davidwr 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Whould you support the policy if its implemenation would delayed until the technical implementation of opting-out? --Millosh 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Not without a pilot test between at least two wikis that agreed to share "global within the group" sysops. Ask me again after the pilot is over. Davidwr 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose per ArielGlenn. The points he brings up are quite valid.--Rockfang 06:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I will not change my vote just because developers "show intention" to possibly implement something that may happen someday.--Rockfang 00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
        • So, would you support the policy if its use would be delayed until the technical implementation of opting-out? --Millosh 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
13. 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)
14. Oppose (in the current form), IMHO, this is a function which does need to be fully global, on all wikis. There are types of vandalism here which tread beyond only one wiki, and which may appear minor on single wikipedia. Certain forms of vandalism are vandalism on all wikis. With the backlog which (even on the English wikipedia on en:WP:AIV!) occurs every now and then, and with vandalism (with all the recent changes patrollers, also even on the English wikipedia) which does not get reverted and stays for some time (and not only minutes), and where blatant vandalism with only a few edits would not be stopable as it may not have recurred often enough on a single wiki to result in blocks, the people that do watch the cross-wiki aspects of vandalism should have the possibility to revert and stop such edits when they occur, even on the large wikipedia, and preferably fast so the 'vandal' notices that his edits are of concern! People who get this bit should have a broad support from quite a number of wikis, but also have the possibility to use their powers on all wikis. Abuse should result in their bit being withdrawn, but people seem more concerned about the possible abuse than about advantages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 11:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • (I am quite close to going on a short trip, so I don't have too much time.) Funny that you give me the generic ask as well, you could have noticed that I vote against the proposal for different reasons, so:

        Reply. No, I am not voting oppose because I want the capability to have an opt-out/opt-in system. I do believe that the task 'global sysop' should be global. That is, no opt-out! I know I am the odd one out here, but I believe that the current state of the proposal indeed forces the large wikis to request opt-out. With the opt-out it is just as easy for the stewards to just give some trusted meta-admins with some experience (temp) sysop status to catch the obvious stuff, and it would solve a part of the problem (vandalism to small wikis), but it does not solve the complete problem that we have here.

        What the majority of the oppose votes here want is to remove the global status of the global sysop. Still, the large wikis have to live with cross-wiki vandalism as well. Cross wiki external link 'spammers' perform only a small number of edits on wiki, and would probably not get blocked for that, but if one looks at the total number of edits performed on the project, they would well be over the limit. Now those editors active on such cross-wiki aspects would have to revert using undo (tedious!!!), and go to WP:AIV (where they might get a slow or no response, 'only n (n<5) edits, not a reason to block yet!'). The global sysop should be able to perform actions on such cases, when there is a clear global aspect to the vandalism (including spamming). So:

        • Total global sysop, no opt-out, but,
        • Only allowed to use the global sysop tools when there is a clear global form of vandalism.
        • Voting, only admins (on whatever project) votes are counted (all users allowed to comment), they need a clear majority of granting (80%?), and the group of voters has to contain at least 3 (unique) admins per wiki from at least 15 (?) content wikis. Voting can close after that has been reached, or after 30 days when there is no chance of support.

    So with the opt-out I would still, or maybe even harder, oppose the proposal. Then it is just useless. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    Hm. I made a couple of mistakes with putting my generic question and I fixed one of them... I didn't put a generic question because I don't have enough of time for communication, but because the question was same. I could only make different sentences not to make this to look like a generic question :) --Millosh 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    You may see that there is a hard opposition to any global permission. While in this moment majority supports the idea, we are very far from the consensus. And I suppose that your idea would have much harder opposition. This may be the first global role. And only when people start to communicate all over the projects much more frequently (cross-wiki cooperation is almost non-existing; with exceptions in the relation *.wp->en.wp (only one way) and some very close languages (but, not all!), like tr and az are). --Millosh 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose until there is a technical opt-out. —Dark ^talk 11:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose until projects can opt out. -- Eugene van der Pijll 12:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    No. -- Eugene van der Pijll 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose; same reasons, opt-out option must be implemented first.Ezhiki 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose; sledgehammer to crack some small nuts, and a dangerous one at that. --Alison Wheeler 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
19.  Oppose - No thanks, there is nothing all-that-wrong with the current system. If a Wiki has too few administrators then search the current active user list and find suitable candidates to nominate or sysop (depending on the system). If there aren't enough users to do this, i'd question the point of the project in general. This is just a way of increasing power to those who are hungry for it, IMO. Sorry. Cyclonenim 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    Do you have ANY real experience to fight vandalism on small wikis to produce such statements? --Yaroslav Blanter 14:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    How is that at all relevant? No, I do not have experience on small wikis but my point was that if you have even a few active, reliable users, nominate them for adminship on your small wiki. If you don't have enough active users then I'd question the point of existence for that wiki. My experience of vandal fighting isn't relevant at all to my point. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    Well, just looks like you are voicing an opinion on the subject you have no idea of. If things were so simple no vandal fighters would be needed at all. --Yaroslav Blanter 14:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    That is your opinion but may I bring to your attention that this poll is not about the necessity of vandal fighters but about global sysops. I am by no means objective to vandal fighters on smaller wikis, they play a crucial role in reverting vandalism. My point is regarding the necessity of global admins which I see as pointless since you can nominate your own administrators from active users. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose - I cannot support this policy in its current form. My primary grievance is with the stupidly high number of requirements placed on even being elegible - why not let the community decide who is "worthy" of such tools. Also, some communities may wish to opt out of this, and therefore a technical opt-out is necessary, nay, mandatory before this is implemented. --Skenmy 14:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose -- atleast not in it's current form. = ) --Camaeron 15:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I agree that there should be a technical opt-out for the wikis that wish it, standards for this user right are too high in my opinion. Rudget. 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
23.  Oppose as per Davidwr. It's too immature, but there are also other problems:
    1. local sysops usually form a kind of community, that global admins may have probles to participate in;
    2. I think first SUL needs to settle down a little bit and we should gain some wider-scale experience from it;
    3. The needs to introduce that (except for 'let's help small wikis') are too vague and they just not justify introducing a sledgehammer as others pointed;
    4. Even then, the projects should explicitily opt-in to participate in this experiment.

    And please Millosh, do not put your generic placeholder below my vote.  « Saper // @talk »  16:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

24. Oppose for the main reason stated above - no way to opt out. I don't think anyone should be given admin access to a wiki without the consent of its community. (Please, no cut-and paste responses, I've read the discussion and will only change my stance once the feature is actually available.) --Explodicle 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    Fair enough :) --Millosh 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

25. I did not think that there was anything wrong with this until I read the comments of MessedRocker and WjBscribe (who is ironically supporting). –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
26.  Oppose per Saper, bug 14556 and other opposes, I don't think we are ready for it yet. (I'm really getting tired of that generic response, so please DON'T put it beneath this Millosh.) --Chetblong (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
27.  Oppose - Londenp 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I really don't see why it is necessary to arrange for these things on meta. There is no visibility for these kinds of proposals on local projects. Centralizing is NOT a good thing. Each project is independent, with local policies, and it should stay that way: don't change it, especially not outside the view of all the people which don't look on or are interested in meta. I don't like this movement to centralize power at all.
28.  Oppose barring an ability for wikis to opt out on a technical level. And don't spam my comment please Millosh. Prodego ^talk 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
29.  Oppose We need to focus on getting local sysops for those wikis that need it; this isn't a good solution, in my opinion, for reasons which have been stated above numerous times. - Rjd0060 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
30.  Oppose Per most of the above. Not until larger wiki's have this opt out ability. KnowledgeOfSelf 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
31.  Oppose, while I am completely of the same opinion as Ral315 and KnowledgeOfSelf. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
32.  Oppose Per KnowledgeOfSekf and Skenmy. GreenJoe 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
33.  Oppose No need for it at least for the large wikis. Maybe the small ones, but its completely unneccesary for my wiki.--Finalnight 22:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
34.  Oppose Bad idea. Sorry. 24.97.138.90 22:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
35.  Oppose Needs the trust of the Local community to have rights there. Alexfusco⁵ 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
36.  Oppose, I agree with most of the above. More centralisation is not something we need. --Aqwis 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose: [[Wonderfool]] would love this... instead of having to build accounts up to adminship on en.wp and en.wt, he could just work for global sysop and bam! delete the main pages of hundreds of projects. - Amgine 02:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    That is an argument against wikis, not against this proposal.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

38. 'Oppose Unless larger wikis have optout ability. SirFozzie 05:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
39.  Oppose - Having read both the for and against arguments - I do not support this proposal.--VS ^talk 05:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
40.  Oppose - Waerth 07:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
41. Zanaq 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Let the communities decide on what admins they would like. Let's not allow admins with no knowledge of the local policies.
42.  Oppose. There is a considerable risk that this means centralization and standardization, with the English Wikipedia leading. As long as there are areas where out-and-out craziness rules on the English Wikipedia (in defiance of all guidelines) such a centralization is a very bad idea. - Brya 07:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
43.  Oppose. People deciding about Wiki's they never go to and probably don't even know the main language @ that Wiki, scary 'wannabe in power syndrom'. JorritH 07:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
44. oppose per many of the above. Theo 07:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
45.  Oppose - those who do not participate in a community day to day have no business administering it. Blowdart 07:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
46. No, please...  Oppose Rubietje88 09:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
47.  Oppose Maxwvb 09:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
48.  Oppose - CrazyPhunk 09:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
49. Oppose—Admins are appointed by the local communities. Period. If projects have no community (and thus no admins), they're essentially dead. —mnh·∇· 10:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
50.  Oppose - see the comment made by Zanaq - Silver Spoon 10:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
51.  Oppose ---Joep Zander 10:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
52.  Oppose - Dutch T-bone 89.146.9.130
53.  Oppose - I agree with above comments by Zanaq, LondenP and JorritH. Mwpnl 12:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
54.  Oppose - Mhaesen 13:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
55.  Oppose - Far too risky. Guido den Broeder 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
56.  Oppose - No, this would be going too far. There should be a sense of collaboration between wikis but they and their (administrative) policies should remain independent. -- Mentisock 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
57.  Strong oppose - I want to talk to a moderator in my own language.--Westermarck 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
58.  Oppose - Too risky - Erik1980 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
59.  Oppose - Why give right en be not able to use it. Sterkebak 16:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    This right will have every large project, including nl.wp. --Millosh 16:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

     Oppose - Roelzzz 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC) this vote has been done by IP 84.80.25.19 anonymously, -jkb- (cs.source) 16:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

60.  Oppose - Roelzzz 17:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (why do I have to create an account? Everyone can make an account with username Roelzzz!)
61.  Oppose Just what we need, more instruction creep. Pilotguy radar contact 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
62.  Oppose : technically premature. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
63.  Oppose --Revolus Echo der Stille 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
64.  Oppose - People should not be sysops on wikis where they are not active. Anonymous101 19:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
65.  Oppose - One should be member of the community of which one is an admin. Lexw 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
66.  Oppose - per dutch colleague Guido den Broeder and Erik 1980 Geograaf 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (nl:User:Geograaf
67.  Oppose Syrcro 21:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
68.  Oppose In order to best use the broom of adminship on a wiki, even just to fight vandalism, one must be familiar with that wiki's workings. A global admin is not the best solution. If good candidates are found, then admin them on a wiki-by-wiki basis. Also, while strong passwords for admins are always recommended, it doesn't take a fortune teller to figure out the havoc that could be caused on multiple wikis. — MrDolomite • Talk 21:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
69.  Oppose Fighting vandalism is alright, but I think global admins don't need so many permissions to do this. Anyway: Is there so much vandalism, that does not concern only one project? And if there is, I think it would be better to sysop the people on the several projects instead of giving them global administrator permissions. Most sysops speak about 3 to 4 different languages, so how can they fight vandalism in a lot of languages (how many are there actually?)? --ChrisiPK 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
70.  Oppose 08-15 23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
71. Noddy93 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
72.  Oppose Is there a democratic legitimation for global admins? --Gleiberg 00:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
73.  Oppose I don't have a problem with someone from one wiki exercising adminship powers on another: my problem with it is language. What if I would go on a wiki other than the English Wikipedia and use my admin powers there, attempting to do well but misunderstanding the language enough that I caused problems? I like this possibility, but what I read here is a proposal to give all admins those abilities, and even the "opt-out" ideas (unless I missed something) don't answer this problem. I'd like to see the technical ability to have this done, but it should only be done if the admin on one project is, say, tested on the language of the other one. Let the English-speaking German administrator help at en:wikipedia, but don't let me be an administrator at de:wikipedia. Nyttend 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
74. --NoCultureIcons 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
75.  Oppose--85.180.7.216 01:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
76.  Oppose Julius1990 04:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
77.  Oppose No, thank you, vandalism is anyway not a big problem, and I can't wait for some of the Serbian and Croatian sysops starting to administrate the Bosnian WP. Fossa 06:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
78.  Oppose --Janurah 06:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
79.  Oppose In my opinion, this should be an opt-in-option for those projects who wants this. In its currently proposed form and regarding the currently missing support of even opt-out, I cannot support global admins. --AFBorchert 06:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Yes, Millosh, I have read your comments, there is no need to duplicate it once more. Thanks.
80. Nein Danke! --Geher 06:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
81.  Oppose - I agree with central appointment of admins for small wiki's according to an opt-in system, but not with this proposal. KKoolstra 07:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
82.  Oppose --Gripweed 07:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
83.  Oppose Only as Opt-In --Habakuk 07:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
84.  Oppose --Uwe Gille 08:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
85.  Oppose MADe 08:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
86.  Oppose --Large Wikipediae do not depend on global administrators and should keep their current systems for establishing all administrators by their own community. The differences in philosophy e.g. between enwiki and dewiki are so large already that it would cause conflicts. I'd be in favor of global administratorship for small Wikipediae only. -- Arcimboldo 08:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
87.  Oppose --85.182.42.252 08:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) As a German I can only say: Wikipedia ist Ländersache. Cultural and political diversity across the world should be supported by Wikipedia. I see a long term danger for such a diversity if we allow for Global adminship. In the beginning such a system will be 19th Century-History Revisited. any reason why SUL does't work here? --Wuselig
88.  Oppose Too far too dAb: 86.83.155.44 08:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
89.  Oppose sebmol ^? 08:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC) not without opt-out option
90.  Oppose See No. 78 and one above, a croatian sysop has just been blocked on de:WP. For small wikis ok, but definitely not for those with large communities. --Sargoth 09:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
91.  Oppose as of reasons mentioned above. Van der Hoorn 09:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
92. Nein danke, sehe mehr Missbrauchsmöglichkeiten denn als Nutzen. --Chrislb 09:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Translation - No thanks, I see more possibilities of abuse than use as a utility. Rudget. 13:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

93.  Oppose --Ma-Lik 10:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
94. No. --Mg [ˈmœçtəˌɡeʁn] 10:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
95.  Oppose --Michael Reschke 10:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
96.  Oppose --Meisterkoch 10:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
97.  Oppose --Björn Bornhöft 10:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
98.  Oppose --LKD 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
99.  Oppose -- smial 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
100.  Oppose --Poupou l'quourouce 11:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
101.  Oppose --Gnu1742 12:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
102.  Oppose --Jan eissfeldt 12:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC) hubris
103.  Oppose --141.84.69.20 13:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC) de:Benutzer:Jodo
104.  Oppose --Stefan64 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
105.  Oppose C-M 13:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
106.  Oppose opt-out is necessary --Avatar 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

      Oppose although I'd consider changing my stance if it was clarified that a global sysop who uses their tools on the English Wikipedia is instantly desysopped without exception (or perhaps an absolutely no exception 3 strikes policy). Otherwise it will quickly become a way to dodge RFA, but still contain all the drama of our admingod system. --JayHenry 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Oops, i didn't read the proposal closely enough! I see that's already there. Need time to reconsider. --JayHenry 13:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

107.  Oppose --Wolfgang H. 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
108.  Oppose People should need to prove themselves in EVERY wiki they want to sysop. Not every wikipedia sysop should have the same powers globally. Some are barely competent as it is. Now you want to give them global power? I think not! Carter
109. Erik Warmelink 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
110.  Oppose I don't like the idea of someone having sysop status in a Wiki without being part of the community of that wiki and without being elected by the members of it. -- Discostu 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
111.  Oppose -- Achim Raschka
112.  Oppose --trm^ger 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
113.  Oppose --AWI 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
114.  Oppose --Orci 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
115.  Oppose, premature; global rollback imho is needed so much more for SWMT and they still don't have it yet, I would like to see rollbacker first, and think it would be a good test for future global additional rights, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. also: [10] „If some wiki doesn't have administrators just in some parts of the day (like the night hours in a specific time zone), they should take care of that wiki during the unmonitored times.“ — I don't see why. SWMT and stewards only acted in case of emergencies, e.g. massive page blanking/replacing etc. I don't see what harm a "testpage" does if it dwells overnight, for such things there is a deletion template. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
116.  Oppose --Kbdank71 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
117.  Oppose --Jpp 18:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
118.  Oppose No reason for a technical opt-out. If a wiki decides not to allow these people helping them, they can put themselves on an opt-out list on Meta and the global sysops will then not be allowed to help these wikis (unless they are elected sysop there). But: The policy does not clearly enough say that global sysops are *not at all* allowed (except in cases of clear emergencies) to use these rights on wikis with any local sysops. If that is said, an opt-out will still not be necessary. --Thogo (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
119.  Oppose -- Seems like an invasion to "liberate" other wikis to me Quistnix 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
120. --Farino 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Different languages, different cultures, different rule sets: it's not worth the trouble it will cause
121.  Oppose -- You can't be a sysop/admin in a community you're not really a part of and that hasn't had a chance to vote for you. Channel R 23:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
122.  Oppose I support the general idea of giving tools to people who are helping manage vandalism on smaller projects but I cannot support until or unless there is an opt-out. I also agree with Ral's comments in this section about the "pre-requisites" but that's probably easier to resolve and not such a concern to me at this time as the opt-out issues. I do think the general idea is a good one, though and I would support if the concerns about opt-out were resolved. Sarah 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
123.  Oppose - Too much abuse of admin privileges already. This will only make it worse. Ward3001 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
124.  Oppose -see birdy —YourEyesOnly 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
125.  Oppose --Polarlys 11:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
126.  Oppose Isn't this what Stewards are for?--Poetlister 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
127.  Oppose --buecherwuermlein 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC) per Poetlister: Why don't vote elect more stewards doing this work?
128.  Oppose --Mordan ( talk - de - de-talk ) 14:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
129.  Oppose Too much of a temptation for privilege abuse. Ironholds 14:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
130.  Oppose. From the "RfGS" procedure proposals, the obtaining of global sysop rights promises to be easier than obtaining sysop privileges on individual wikis. Contributors who have the language knowledge and expertise to wield adminship on a project should be requesting those rights at SRP. Otherwise, my concerns listed at Talk:Global sysops still stand. haz (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
131. strong oppose nice to have for smaller wikis (maybe) but evil for the big communities which have enough manpower and established conventions about who should be an administrator and how to inaugurate them.--Wiggum 16:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Add.: an opt-in solution seems worth to support to me

     Hello Wiggum, just a note: it is not meant for wikis with enough manpower though. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 09:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

     it is not about what it was meant for by intention, but what it may cause by practics .. W!B: 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

     Sorry, but if they would dare to do so, they would loose their status immediately, this is what the policy demands. I am not defending the policy as a whole as I have opposed it too but for other reasons, but this concern is addressed, just wanted to point that out. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 22:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

132.  Oppose Agree with Conrad and others above. miranda 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
133.  Oppose I totally agree with the comments above --Hufi 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
134.  Oppose Only as opt-in. --Oxymoron⁸³ 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
135.  Oppose --AT 03:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
136.  Oppose a sysop should really understand the insides of a wiki, only to understand the language won't do. And this requires a more or less daily involvement. --Geos 07:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
137.  Oppose Balko 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
138.  Oppose --Norro 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
139.  Oppose --UW 10:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
140.  Oppose --Ureinwohner 10:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Thx, cu
141.  Oppose --Zinnmann 11:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
142.  Oppose—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
143.  Oppose--Bunnyfrosch 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) murks
144.  Oppose --Art Unbound 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
145.  Oppose -- LeeGer 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
146.  Oppose W!B: 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (can't see any reason, why small wikis should't "adobt" an sysop from anywhere as a guest worker by intern election)
147.  Oppose --Lecartia 08:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
148.  Oppose --Marbot 14:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
149.  Oppose --Sozi 18:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
150.  Oppose --STBR – !? 19:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Why is terrorism vandalism abused to justify features not wanted by the community?
151.  Oppose as per ArielGlenn, Geos and so on. I might be tempted to change my vote to neutral if the opt-out function was already in place (not just in the pipeline), but I do not think this proposal will be good for smaller communities at all. --Wytukaze 22:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
152.  Oppose --Nolispanmo 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
153.  Oppose --EivindJ 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
154.  Oppose the language issue pretty much cuts it. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:04, 23 June 2008 (GMT)
155.  Oppose due to language problems and lack of an opt-out. I am aware of Millosh's general reply and do not wish to change this vote. Stifle 09:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
156.  Oppose To much trouble might be caused then. Denis Barthel 10:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
157.  Oppose All projects need to retain their soverignty. Opt-in or opt-out through technical means is a must before this can be seriously entertained. WilyD 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
158. Byra, Spacebirdy, PilotGuy and Ral315 raise concerns that seem reasonable to me. Opt-in is essential and how will this work with the good people at the SWMT? Angus McLellan (enwiki talk) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
159. Horrible idea. What's the need for it? Also, Ral315 makes some good points. Moreschi 15:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
160.  Oppose Sounds frightening Varina 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
161.  Oppose Kamil Filip Ulryk 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC) after Ral315's lecture
162.  Oppose IMO, bad idea. More centralization would damage cultural and political diversity across communities. Maybe for smallest wikis till they have enough admins. Avia 03:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

     That is exactly what we are proposing.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

163.  Oppose ThomasV 05:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
164.  Oppose Svens Welt 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
165.  Oppose I could see a huge problem with trustworthy users on small wikis, gaining global sysop and abusing it. Also I think the opt out needs to be implmented before I am willing to support this type of policy. Mww113 12:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
166.  Oppose I that someone should be familiar with a wiki before gaining administrator powers on that wiki. Captain panda 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
167.  Oppose we need a technical opt-out for larger wikis. We've had cases of stewards giving themselves bureaucrat rights on the English Wikipedia (even when they are explicitly not allowed to do so) and this feature is bound to get abused. Hut 8.5 14:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
168.  Oppose Tönjes 12:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
169.  Oppose Honestly, I don't see a need for this as larger wikis will have more than a sufficient number of admins to deal with issues and the steward position was created specifically to address this problem for smaller wikis. In addition, I have personally made a few procedural errors on wikis that I am not familiar with despite my experience on the English Wikipedia and I think letting admins exercise their powers across wikis would carry a significant potential for problems and potentially conflict. Finally, if the user in question really desires or needs sysop powers on another wiki, they are free to stand for an RfA (or the comparable procedure) on the other wiki. Thingg^⊕⊗ 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
170.  Oppose Minderbinder 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I would greatly prefer to see technical opt-out. Daniel (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
     • I will not support until it is implemented. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 23 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 too 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)
   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
     • I understand that large wikis will have a chance to opt-out even if there is no technical solution to the bug request. However I see the main reason for a technical opt-out system to be the chance for small wikis to opt-out. No one will go against the wishes of en.wiki no matter what, but I am conserned for for a reasonably active, but small, wiki such as e.g. sv.wiktionary if no technical opt-out sytem is impemented. When/if the bug is resolved I will change my vote. MiCkE 08:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
       • As I said above, everybody will be happy to see that one small wiki became a mature one. Until that time, they are under patronage of the stewards and global sysops should be here to help to stewards. But, if you are a contributor of one small wiki, I have the question for you: are you sure that you are not willing stewards and global sysops to help you in maintaining your project? --Millosh 18:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
         • I'm sure that I want to be able to say no, should the need to do so arise. I wan't a technical opportunity to opt-out, I'm not sure that I would advocate an opt-out on any specific project I'm active on though (at this time). MiCkE 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
4. I don't think the requirement of being an administrator on at least one content project is good: if someone is such an administrator, he must be busy at his project and hardly have time to supervise other small projects, so such a person will hardly be useful as a global sysop.--Imz 08:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Enjoy the idea, but opt-out should be a technical functionality before this new class can be considered for mainstream integration. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
     • Have changed per new information. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
6. While a nice idea in essence, there are some parts of the proposal that I don't quite like (SUL administration right, Undeletions [they can always ask a steward to undelete; I doubt there'd be emergencies], future global block right, to mention a few). Also, the mentioned technical limitation regarding project opt-out is quite a hindrance, IMHO. Other than that, the proposal has some merits and I acknowledge that the global sysop group would tremendously help in maintaining small wikis. --FiliP × 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I support it for some reasons (cf. comments by Rory096, DeadEyeArrow, Titoxd, and others) and oppose it for others (cf. comments by Messedrocker, Avruch, OverlordQ, and others). I concur with the comments below about the present limited visibility of the watchlist announcement: global sysop is proposed for smaller wikis, yet it is on the smaller wikis that it hasn't been announced in a highly visible way with watchlist messages. — Athaenara (contribs) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
8. I am sysop at enwiki, and have been temporary sysop five, six or seven times in smaller wikis. I agree that there is a need for global sysops. However, it is also true there are wikis with election processes that should be able to opt-out from this feature. I don't believe it is strong enough a reason to object: if the feature is implemented, it should be used. -- ReyBrujo 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
   • (This is a generic ask.) Bug 14556 is submitted and developers showed intention to work on that (in both ways, it would be possible to exclude any large wiki). As it is in process, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be implemented. If you change your vote, it would save a lot of time related to preparation for the next discussion and poll. Thanks in advance. --Millosh 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Per bug 14556 will support once global groups can be defined on a subset or wikis, or wikis can opt-out in some other way. --Rainman 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
10. I think it's a fine idea, but I'm opposed to the qualifications as currently laid out. I also believe there should be a technical opt out. And yes, Millosh, I know about Bug 14556. Philippe 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
11. I think that the deletion/undeletion powers should generally only apply to edits from users whose home wiki is the same as the global sysop's home wiki. I can see making an exception for projects small enough that timely attention from a local admin might be a problem, but if for example, I were to for some strange inexplicable reason ever become a global sysop I doubt I'd be able to judge non-English edits properly. Caerwine 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
12. I don't know enough of the goings-on at the smaller wikis to oppose confidently. However, I have a few reservations about it. The whole opt-out issue would be good to be taken care of, but it seems like that is in the works. I am more worried about the effects it would have on the smaller wikis, especially since a number of them (I believe) are in languages that not many people know. It seems unlikely that global administrators would be able to use their tools effectively in these cases. (how can one know if something is vandalism if one can't read the edits?) It may be that I'm putting too much emphasis on smaller, other language wikipedias, but that's how I see it for now. -- Natalya 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't speak Latin, but it's not hard to tell that this is vandalism. Spamming and test edits are also pretty easy to identify.--Werdan7^{T @} 02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's fair. As I think about it, that same rational could even apply to languages in different scripts. I'll have to think about it. -- Natalya 02:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

13. The opt-out needs to be a reality before this is implemented. -- Avi 04:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Comment below. --Kale 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Waiting for a version with opt-out or opt-in features to be offered. Jeepday 12:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

1. Considering this poll is posted as a watchlist message on en-wiki, and might not get similar visibility in other projects, I don't know how useful the results are. It's pretty obvious that the users on en-wiki would oppose the proposal, since global sysops aren't needed there, and could conceivably harm the project. - Bobet 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I agree, adding this to the watchlist notice was not a good idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Any way we can communicate this to small wiki teams (who do not speak English in many cases)?--Yaroslav Blanter 14:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   How's the Wikimedia Embassy these days? If ambassadors are still doing their jobs, we might be able to get them to translate a notice for that project's {{watchlist-notice}} (presuming they have such a thing) as well. Is that a good idea? --Tiny plastic Grey Knight 16:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

2. This seems to be a general problem: a kind of chaos. Just short time ago there was another voting, on Usurpation policy, that has not been anounced properly, and where there were some three versions of it while the voting went on (first version, updated version, discussed version at least). Might be that meta should provide some kind how to bring something to a poll. And, how to announce it in other projects if the matter does not concern meta only. Otherwise even good ideas will be opposed because not because of the matter but because of the kind of voting. -jkb- (cs.source) 09:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   We could announce these things quite easily if meta had a low-volume page on which important project-affecting announcements owere made, and had a bot to distribute the changes to any local communities that had signed up to it. It might require a bit of work translating all the announcements, but in some ways that is good as it ensures the announcement page will only be used for important things. Conrad.Irwin 10:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well, sorry for the delay, but: it is not necessary to have sufficient translations. I announce on the Czech Wikisource many votings here and elsewehere - like this one - without having any translations. Anybody on a domain should spek English, and he can answer the questions. Mote important is that the domain is informed about a poll that have impact on the domain. And this does not work yet. -jkb- (cs.source) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

3. I submitted bug 14556 for making technical opting-out possible. --Millosh 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Why are you spamming every possible place on this page with your bug link?  « Saper // @talk »  16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I asked only contributors who declared that they are voting against because of a lack of possibility for technical opting-out. It was targeted question; which means that it is not a spam. --Millosh 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   How about posting it once at the top of each section where it would apply, rather than posting duplicates below many individual posts in those sections?
   The duplicate postings are distracting and increase the difficulty of simply reading the editor comments. — Athaenara (contribs) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think that it would be appropriate: (1) it is a question to particular voters, not to all of them and (2) this is the place for comments (not the sections above) (and I see that a lot of voters don't read them). --Millosh 17:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   Do whatever, but its irritating. Not putting it here (in its appropriate place) because 'a lot of voters don't read them' mirrors the mentality of internet spammers.24.242.76.192 11:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

4. I am concerned that the bulk of opposition to this proposal is from enwiki editors (who will be little affected by this user right). If someone with global rights used them on enwiki, they would lose them - it is clearly a project with plenty of local sysops. I think the prominent advertising of this poll on enwiki is leading to a distorted view of the consensus across Wikimedia projects, to the detriment of the small projects who would really benefit from this right. WjBscribe 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   This poll is skewed in any case. The majority of the wikis which would benifit the most from this (the small wikis with no or few admins) have in some cases only a few thousand articles, and hence probably also only a couple of thousand edits, editors solely active on that project are very unlikely to have enough edits to be allowed to vote here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} (en: U, T) 15:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I was actually expecting a revolt from the enwikipedians, and it has happened..I'm not sure why these people are not realising that this proposal is only for the benefit of smaller wikis and larger wikis will NOT be affected..and yes the "global sysops" will have the ability to use Special:Undelete and could delete and block users on those 'bigger' wikis, but they will be forbidden from doing so, and since millosh has already filed a bug on this, it will be better if the people from bigger wikis avoid voting for now and await the outcome of the bug, and if this never eventuates, then sysops and/or crats will be appointed from big wikis to "stalk" the contributions of the global sysops on their wikis and if they do anything out of line, report to the appropriate page here on Meta and they will be dealt with swiftly....but the enwikipedians/large wikipedians should remember a major advantage they have, they can choose who gets the right, since most of them qualify to vote or request the right themselves..if you vote for someone you trust, then all those oppose above will mean nothing....and if not...hope for the tech opt-out to be resolved..--Cometstyles 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   And when has being forbidden stopped an admin from doing something they shouldn't? And now they're supposed to get a global bit? OverlordQ 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I fully agree. Looks like they really think that a project with less than 100K articles is not worth anything and should be closed, and the only think they care about is their independence. Some of them even registered just to vote here. May be we should have two foundations: one for ewn.wp and one for everybody else.--Yaroslav Blanter 07:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe not two foundation, but the policy with doesn't cover en.wp and which doesn't allow to people from en.wp to vote about the policy. --Millosh 08:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   I also agree with your findings. Population of small wikis are under-represented, yet this affects them much more than big wikis like en.wp (and I observed that some IP or newly registered user came here just to vote oppose) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Ironically, on this very same page we have [11]. I find much of the discussion above to be nonsense. Firstly, about the matter of stringent requirements: a poll at Wikipedia for creating an op is always in large part a popularity contest, and the quantitative requirements can be both side-stepped and gamed. Secondly, about the matter of technical-opt-out, if these projects can't get together and bless someone to admin then what is the precedent for believing they can have a coherent poll to oust an ignorant or abusive global sysop? The fantasy is that once some critical mass is achieved they'll be able to opt-out, but in reality it will become an accepted part of the status-quo with its benefits and drawbacks. More obsession with centralization that 2% of editors have and the rest get drummed up to vote about. If a valuable discussion can't come from this, I hope all these same ops salivating over this poll take the opportunity to volunteer for temporary op positions on a case-per-case basis, which already has much precedent and low incident of complaint.24.242.76.192 11:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Opt-in or Opt-out. What I experience as the biggest problem here is the Opt-in or Opt-out solution. I have no problems giving members of SWMT admin-rights on par exemple nl-Wikibooks *if they ask for it*. I have no problem to opt-in on a meta-policy, but only after the policy is discussed at the local community and the community accepts this. I do have a problem with the way policies are imposed on people and communities, who have 1) no knowledge about the discussion, 2) might not understand english enough to discuss on meta 3) are only focussed on the local community. I will oppose any changes and any policies which affects local communities, when it is not reviewed and accepted by the local community. This is not the way to go!! You can all develop policies how many you like, but opt-in and do it the hard way. Policies which are valuable will be adopted, and if not: something must be wrong with the policy. Londenp 13:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   I totally agree with this comment. Make it opt-in and we'll see how many communities will adopt it. Silver Spoon 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   Not many. Because the large wikis don't need it and the small wikis that will be benefit from this have no real communities that can adopt this. --MF-W 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Based on some of the comments, I’m not sure how many people actually read the proposal. The `large-wiki-skepticism` should be the least of our concerns since these wikis will never have to deal with global sysops, especially with the introduction of a technical opt-out for them (assuming it will become reality). There are well-intended volunteers out there dealing with small wikis with an extremely limited level of understanding for both the nature of a good number of edits, and for the specifics of any given project. With this in mind, it seems that introducing yet more tools to the conundrum might not be the best way to promote small wiki stability/prosperity. If the intention is to help the smaller projects, there is a good deal of ways in which SMWT could be improved, all requiring willing participants and dedication to establishing better communication with the smaller wikis, even if their communities amount to no more than a handful of editors. But motivating potential volunteers by means of enabling the usage of shiny global tools (global rollback aside) might not be the best way to go; IMHO, anyway. The centralization concerns should not be slighted either. This poll fairly depicts that adequate representation of the global community at Meta is missing. Electing GSs in the proposed way would not assure they are, in fact, globally trusted... A more gradual introduction, perhaps (as someone suggested) by means of trial on smaller groups of wikis (adjusting to their feedback) could be a better way to go. --Kale 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
8. I strongly recommend to omit any opt out - a community can't work on stepping aside, but only on a willing to share - which means, if I have to say „no“ to working together, instead of saying „yes“, there's a bug in it: we could do an opt-in for any wiki, which means, it's a ask for support (not a refusal) W!B: 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Has anybody noticed that about half, if not more, of the oppose votes have absolutely no explanation. Parent5446 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The name

I don't think the name "global sysop" is sitting well with most users. Oppose voters are talking about en: and de:wikipedia, never mind that the global sysops according to the proposal has never been meant to use their tools on either of those wikis. I think the name "global sysop" is misleading. --Jorunn 10:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

it is very misleading, but when the voting was taking place for a suitable name, most that opposed based on the name (above) didn't add their input of the name they wished it should be, we can't blame the stewards for choosing this name, since the community itself supported the name, though there were a few other names which could have been chosen and which sounded more appropriate and less bureaucratic...--Cometstyles 10:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The stewards are of course not to blame for this name. I do not want to blame anyone, except myself for not seeing this clearly and saying so before the poll on the name was over.

The name global sysop for this role is really not helping this proposal along. I don't think that a proposal for something called global sysop will ever pass the vote here, no matter what the actual content of the proposal is. --Jorunn 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that whitewashing is fair. There are plenty of valid concerns among those opposing.24.242.76.192 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not see any valid concerns. It has been stated that the proposal concerns smaller wikis with no or little community, and the global sysops or whatever they will be called will not be allowed to use this option on big wikis. Even the opt-out bug has been submitted. The concerns are still that the big wikis will be affected (even though is is explicit in the proposal they will be not), and of course people from en.wp do not care about small wiki vandalism, this is very much understandable. I must say that I am a meta regular and all people I have eve heard of, with the only exception - that of Alison Wheeler - supported the proposal. I assume most of these voting against did not actually read the proposal, even less the discussion on the proposal, but have heard of it at IRC channel and came to vote even though they have no idea of meta issues. All really serious concerns have been addressed in the course of the discussion and at the early stages of the voting.--Yaroslav Blanter 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is Their role is global on all Wikimedia projects. They have permissions on all Wikimedia projects, comparable with administrator permissions on individual projects, and is not Their role is limited to small Wikimedia projects. They have permissions only on small Wikimedia projects, comparable with administrator permissions on individual projects,. --Sargoth 00:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The name was chosen after a week of straw polling. To argue about it now will not be productive. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This proposal was announced on the Dutch Wikipedia pub by a sysop reading Meta stuff on a regular basis. His main concern was the opt-out issue, while many Dutch Wikipedians were concerned with proposals coming from "above" (Meta that is), without due announcement of a "global" measure like this. As a result, Dutch Wikipedians voted 5-35 against the proposal. I guess this is a clear sign. If you want a proposal accepted "globally" make sure you announce it properly in advance, have it translated with a summary of the arguments, and make it very clear up to which point local Wikis are affected. Politics may be far more important than you think. - Art Unbound 19:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ja, thats it: until meta is a sheer english platform, there always will be caveats by national projects (there are resentiments against beeing constrained to argue in foreign language) - we learned a lot about that in the way how the European Union works - so, if tasks like that ought to be prepared lets say in about a dozen main "official" languages, they would work better: we could do arguing and voting in our languages, and count together.. --W!B: 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing up

This poll is now closed, and it seems clear that this proposal should be rejected. Are we ready to archive up and undertake the necessary housekeeping that follows such a rejection. Who is responsible for this, and for formally rejecting the poll? --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Trouble at the Persian Wikipedia

I have moved it to Requests for comments/Trouble at the Persian Wikipedia--Mardetanha ^talk 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)