User talk:Cabayi/Global Admin View

Comments[edit]

I'm not up on the nuances of all the various permissions, but the general idea seems good to me. Somewhat orthogonal to this (and probably a much bigger project), it would be nice to have a single global search index that covered all the wikis. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammed Khan Chowdhury (21 August 2021) is a perfect example of where this would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you talked to Legal about this? Historically viewdeleted is the one right they've gatekept the most; I think this long-ago comment by Mike Godwin, and the comments it's in response to, are still essentially the WMF's position. Since everyone included in the scope of this proposal would have viewdeleted access on at least one wiki, maybe it would be less of an issue, but I'd still be curious what the WMF has to say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at the bottom of the proposal under "Before starting a full discussion". GeneralNotability (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I probably should have read to the end. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the detail. Thanks for the link Tamzin, I've long known of Legal's RFA requirement, but I'd have taken forever looking for it. Cabayi (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, in looking for it I found out that someone once put together a page of every bit of legal commentary Mike had made on-wiki. Mike deleted it. Reasonable call, but funny given what you just said. :D -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Did you ever hear back from the WMF? I think the proposal is an excellent idea. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kick Blablubbs. Legal replied on 10 Sept with a couple of sticking points. I wanted to take my time in crafting a reply and let it slip longer than I should. They're concerned about the potential for misuse, and point to users who can already see the deleted material.

I think the misuse aspect is covered by the fact that all candidates would have passed an RFA somewhere, and that there is a proposed revocation procedure. The users they suggest being able to see deleted material under existing arrangements are only able to see material under their own purview and can't compare it to material elsewhere which is the key purpose of the proposal. I've replied to them and invited further comment. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I offered up the possibility of adding a requirement to sign the confidentiality agreement as an extra safeguard. Fingers crossed. Cabayi (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks to AntiCompositeNumber for pointing me at what WMF mean by a well attended process. Cabayi (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]