MediaWiki talk:Group-steward.js

Wiki request queue link
Would you elaborate where this "intentional behavior" was established such that Steward agreement regarding their own group JS file is not sufficient to alter said behavior? — Chrs (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, there wasn't "steward agreement", one Steward said that. In my view, your edit was nothing more than a BOLD change (in the interface!). Second, I wasn't talking about the JavaScript file, I was talking about Stewards relationship to wiki creators. I also recall the community being opposed to seeing stewards as "super wiki creators" in a past RFC, but am having trouble searching for that RFC at the moment. Naleksuh (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well a steward requested the change and that’s all that is necessary. Naleksuh, it is not your decision how the interface works for stewards when you are not one. If you disagree with a change, talk to people instead of pointlessly reverting. Stewards can create wikis if they want to, there is no policy against it. They decide how they want to manage their user group not you. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 01:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with a change, talk to people instead of pointlessly reverting. This is bad advice. The process is bold, revert, discuss for a reason and not "bold, discuss". This especially applies when it is an interface page and you are yelling at someone for restoring the status quo. If I made a change that you didn't like, I'm sure you would just revert it without talking to me. Probably even via rollback. Naleksuh (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This change was in fact discussed with one of the 4 (3 if you exclude, who keeps the redundant WC bit) users who would be affected, who happen to be Stewards. If you believe that to be insufficient, please explain why. — Chrs (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggesting Stewards can’t use wikicreator tools is the most absurd thing I’ve heard since I’ve joined MH. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 01:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Naleksuh please point me to a policy that specifically says that. Remember that we are not Wikipedia. And no I only revert if other people disagree as well. I only revert things like this based on discussion and how things have played out already (example if other people have reverted). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 02:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. Fortunately, I never suggested that so there should be no issue with hearing it. Naleksuh (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear just in case it wasn't, I entirely endorse the additions in question as useful for my role. Also, I see no reason why a Steward cannot act as a standard wiki creator. If you can bring a substantive discussion that clearly isolates the two functions I will defer and restore the bit (though its utility for other purposes including investigation means it should stay on the sidebar either way). Likewise if no evidence of that exists or the community is unsatisfied should there be not enough either way, I welcome a clarification RfC that endorses my approach (steward = including all wiki creator actions/responsibility) or separates the two roles properly. Until then I will continue to consider my Steward bit as perfectly good leverage to act as a wiki creator as well as a supervisor of wiki creations. Note that I do not take this as 'super wiki creator' per se, I consider it endorsement to act as a wiki creator including its boundaries/responsibility unless my steward role requires me to 'pull rank' for certain issues that come up. --Raidarr (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that wiki creators were for creating wikis, and that Stewards have the permission for the reason that they have lots of other permissions (i.e. they have delete but shouldn't be overriding sysops unless necessary etc). I never said that Stewards were prohibited from creating wikis (if they were, the permission should be taken away), just that they would use them like any other steward grants (i.e. in the abscence of wiki creator) and not acting as a wiki creator. However, I recognize that this is simply a way of thinking about things and not formally put into policy anywhere. I"m not vehemently opposed to reinstating the edit, but I don't like the idea of pretending it should have never been reverted, or that "bold, revert, discuss" has become "bold, discuss" (I assume MacFan4000 will not practice what they preach, and continue reverting anything they do not like, despite having been warned about their use of rollback multiple times by multiple users). I don't really think the stewards being wiki creators thing is as big a deal as some are saying (though there should definitely be one way or another, it seems like this is a legacy from before it existed?). In my view, the easiest way to avoid this problem would simply be to reassign wiki creator (you went through an RfWC just fine). However, whether or not Stewards are overseers of wiki creators, or not, might require an RFC. Naleksuh (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I prefer using the bit when I happen on the queue and see a backlog, at which time I'm either very unlikely to run into another WC or if another WC is/starts acting, I prefer to stop and let them get it done. --Raidarr (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't explain why you felt it necessary to revert without discussion a change which had been discussed with a Steward regarding their own group JS, claiming it to be intentional behavior; or felt the need to immediately tell me (over IRC) that Somehow I knew by your intonation you were "fixing" something that was not broken. — Chrs (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why is this being done via a group js page, instead of a personal js page or even a gadget? I would prefer either of those to be honest, as I already have a script that adds these and other links I find useful. -- Void  Whispers 02:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to the fact that it's done via a group js page for wiki creators in general (MediaWiki:Group-wikicreator.js), which doesn't work for Stewards who remove the wiki creator group from themselves due to redundancy. Migrating to a gadget could actually be quite beneficial as it would allow such scripts to be assigned on the basis of rights, not groups, and could allow more flexibility. — Chrs (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stewards who remove the wiki creator group from themselves due to redundancy I see no reason to support this use case in JavaScript files. Also, it may not actually be redundant. A good example of this is Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_4. Naleksuh (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stewards are explicitly assigned the `createwiki` right in their local group (as opposed to their global one); this is more akin to how a Steward doesn't need to possess the interwiki admin global group, but can still process interwiki requests just like an interwiki admin can, whereas Meta interface administrator is assigned by Meta bureaucrats, and that while Stewards do have that access globally, they only invoke it when circumstances warrant global intervention (i.e. emergencies and such). Anyways, I see no need to dictate to Stewards whether their own JS file should support this use case. — Chrs (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)