Requests for Comment/Give Global Sysops interwiki rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There seems to be consensus (also taking into account comments which were not strictly !votes) that with interwiki administrators continuing to exist (after Proposal 2.1 of the other RfC failed), Global Sysops do not need to have 'interwiki' access and that giving them 'interwiki' rights would not make the process faster. Most of the support votes also don't clearly indicate their reasoning. Therefore, the RfC fails. Reception123 (talk) (C) 18:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

---

In Proposal 2.1 of this RfC about lowering the requirements for interwiki administrator, several users expressed their support for giving Global Sysops interwiki rights, but these rights were not given because the way the proposal was worded meant that it would only take effect if Proposal 2 of the RfC was successful, which it was not. The rationale for giving Global Sysops these rights was that they were trusted by the community, and they may respond to issues quicker than Stewards can. In hindsight, if Proposal 2.1 of the RfC was not dependent on the success of another proposal that ended up failing, it would've passed and this RfC wouldn't be necessary, but it's too late to change it now. Tali64³ (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Global Sysops will be given interwiki rights, which will allow them to modify the interwiki table.

Support

1. Support as proposer and because several users have already expressed their support for giving Global Sysops these rights. Tali64³ (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Strong support I have only the highest respect for all current global sysops, and trust that they would use this permission resoponsibly. I see no issue granting them this right. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 08:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Strong support Users who has global rights on miraheze are fewer than wikimedia.They'll be easier to work. by Buel ·Talk·e-mail 10:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Strong support per above --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 14:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
5. Strong support I'm a user who looks at it from a different point of view, but things can change when this is a servant. Global Administrators have the ability to edit all pages in Miraheze and they can also grant user rights (as you know, local administrators can also give it to us). I support the service by emphasizing it to the end and I believe that they can take responsibility. Hope the result will be good for Miraheze.... --Hey Türkiye ^message? 16:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose This RfC is honestly unnecessary. I don't see the clear rationale here, interwiki requests as currently being handled as quick as possible, there's a difference between when a user is impatient with their request and when their request is not attended to quickly, think about that. Interwiki administrators and Stewards can currently edit the interwiki table, so I see no reason the Global Syops needs this bit. They have lots of CVT jobs to handle, so I prefer that they focus on their roles as CVT interventors. If there's an interwiki request on discord for example it gets handled aqap as long as I'm around, on CN for example, unless the thread was covered by other threads quickly it might be difficult for me for example to find it, a good example is a latest request by Ora D, but as long as I'm pinged, I definitely attend to them. ----  Joseph  TB  CT  CA  14:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

   There may be some cases in which Global Sysops need to modify the interwiki table; for example, if you were absent from Miraheze because of illness and Stewards were busy handling other things, then Global Sysops would be the only high-permission group available for actioning requests, and if they had interwiki rights, they could modify the interwiki table at users' requests. In other words, giving Global Sysops interwiki rights may speed up the handling of interwiki requests. Tali64³ (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

   Just from an observation point - the number of Stewards + IWA is quite high already - actually with 2 global sysops (one of which already has IWA permission), you'd only be adding one global sysop who already has stated they're not going to be active so it won't actually increase the number of the people likely to action requests. John (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose Per comments from others, the mandate for global sysops is intentionally narrowly-scoped to countervandalism. While users in the GSysOps role have already achieved high community trust and the toolset at their disposal in achieving that remit is quite broad, I share the concerns of others about incremental expansion of duties.
   Rationale for weak opposition: While it is true that there are several people that could theoretically do IWA tasks and few GSysOps at present, many of those already-empowered individuals either have other volunteer responsibilities or have limited activity. For that reason, I do see the merit in potentially granting more trusted users the ability to take action when/if backlogs arise. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 00:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above --小美粉粉 (T - C - S) 1004065811 bytes of data NOTE: Do not {{ping}} me! 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose With my original proposal to abolish interwiki administrators not being successful this as a standalone proposal does not make sense in my opinion. With the Interwiki administrator group being abolished there was a clear necessity to have more users being able to patrol interwiki tables but with the interwiki administrator group remaining there is in my opinion not a demonstrated need to add Global Sysops to this and grant them a an administrative function. Other functions that may be cited as administrative (Dormancy Policy exemptions, requests to reopen wikis, requests to enable extensions) are reserved to Stewards and potentially could be opened up to another group similar to Global Sysop but I do not think it is a good idea to expand the Global Sysop group too much and have it too closely aligned with the Steward group. A necessity or evidence that interwiki requests have been moving too slowly has not been provided either to justify this. --DeeM28 (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

1. Just an observation however, most users in the previous RfC seem to agree in giving Global Sysops the right in order to fulfil their mandate as members of the Counter Vandalism Team (which is to remove spam/vandalism). This proposal seems to want to expand Global Sysops' scope to also assist in interwiki matters when their primary purpose is chiefly countervandalism. An RfC proposing adding the ability to rename users to the Global Sysop toolset comes to mind when reviewing this RfC as many there expressed concern against expanding the scope of Global Sysops past one that is only countervandalism. Additionally, John makes a very good point in his reply stating that the number of Stewards and Global Interwiki administrators is very large. This change would only add one new interwiki administrator (who, as John stated, 'has stated they're not going to be active') as the other Global Sysop is already a global interwiki administrator so no real immediate effect would be observable. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 19:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.