This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Global rights policy page. |
|
Archives: 1 |
ANNOYING!!!!! Ok, who loses their redirect? (I double posted this, guess where) Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 18:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a long discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?
My proposal here follows. Please suggest alternative wording if you'd like. Note that WMF employees and employees of affiliates are exempt when fulfilling their duties for these employers. Wikipedians-in-Residence only need to declare what they are doing.
To be placed as a subsection immediately under "Use of rights"
No editor may use their global rights on Wikipedia or their status as a global rights holder to:
Salaries, payments and grants made by the Wikimedia Foundation or its affiliates (e.g. chapters) are excepted. Wikipedians-in-Residence should declare their paid status and their paid use of global rights, but are otherwise exempt.
Global interface administrators can technically protect any page with any protection. This also applies to users who are not administrators on the English Wikipedia. Because protection of articles is not really "their job", neither globally nor locally, I guess they should not do so? ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
(protect)
right primarily as it is required to edit a protected page they may have a special reason to edit. There could be some odd use cases where they may apply or modify a protection level, but it would be very very rare. There is an extremely small number of GEI's and they are carefully vetted (outside WMF employees there are only 10). They are still expected to follow all local policies and if they were to edit through protection or set/change/remove a protection level outside our policy we could block them (which would also likely lead to their GEI access being pulled). —
xaosflux
Talk
00:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The first protection by a global interface editor was implemented by Sophivorus earlier today. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
protect
right was
added to the global group by
Snowolf in 2012 to enable editing of cascade protected pages, so it's clear that global interface editors were never actually intended to be allowed to protect pages in the first place. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I've created the global deleters section following a discussion at WP:BN. – xeno talk 20:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The case reported at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media and discussed on the talk page there seems relevant to this policy. (TL;DR: A steward from another wiki globally locked the account of active English Wikipedia editor for actions on the steward's home wiki, with a rationale that appears to match none of the usual "clear-cut situations" listed at m:Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock.) Regards, HaeB ( talk) 21:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Global rights policy page. |
|
Archives: 1 |
ANNOYING!!!!! Ok, who loses their redirect? (I double posted this, guess where) Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 18:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a long discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?
My proposal here follows. Please suggest alternative wording if you'd like. Note that WMF employees and employees of affiliates are exempt when fulfilling their duties for these employers. Wikipedians-in-Residence only need to declare what they are doing.
To be placed as a subsection immediately under "Use of rights"
No editor may use their global rights on Wikipedia or their status as a global rights holder to:
Salaries, payments and grants made by the Wikimedia Foundation or its affiliates (e.g. chapters) are excepted. Wikipedians-in-Residence should declare their paid status and their paid use of global rights, but are otherwise exempt.
Global interface administrators can technically protect any page with any protection. This also applies to users who are not administrators on the English Wikipedia. Because protection of articles is not really "their job", neither globally nor locally, I guess they should not do so? ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
(protect)
right primarily as it is required to edit a protected page they may have a special reason to edit. There could be some odd use cases where they may apply or modify a protection level, but it would be very very rare. There is an extremely small number of GEI's and they are carefully vetted (outside WMF employees there are only 10). They are still expected to follow all local policies and if they were to edit through protection or set/change/remove a protection level outside our policy we could block them (which would also likely lead to their GEI access being pulled). —
xaosflux
Talk
00:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The first protection by a global interface editor was implemented by Sophivorus earlier today. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
protect
right was
added to the global group by
Snowolf in 2012 to enable editing of cascade protected pages, so it's clear that global interface editors were never actually intended to be allowed to protect pages in the first place. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I've created the global deleters section following a discussion at WP:BN. – xeno talk 20:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The case reported at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-19/In the media and discussed on the talk page there seems relevant to this policy. (TL;DR: A steward from another wiki globally locked the account of active English Wikipedia editor for actions on the steward's home wiki, with a rationale that appears to match none of the usual "clear-cut situations" listed at m:Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock.) Regards, HaeB ( talk) 21:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)