Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Stewards Stewards' noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the stewards' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.
For stewards

Preparing for global renames[edit]

Soon it will be possible to rename accounts globally per gerrit:92468. I believe the relevant steward request pages should be updated in preparation. For more information, see the commit message on gerrit. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The required right to use Special:GlobalRenameUser is 'centralauth-rename'. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Docs: mw:Help:Extension:CentralAuth/Global_rename. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


  1. This proposal would be effective 18 June 1 July 2014 with the deployment of SUL renaming.
  2. Stewards will handle all global renames; i.e. a user with an SUL requesting a change of username. The new user right 'centralauth-rename' will be added to the local steward group on meta.
  3. Local bureaucrats will handle non-SUL renames and usurpations; i.e. users without an SUL or users trying to take over an account name to complete their SUL.
  4. (Not part of the proposal) When SUL finalization is complete, stewards will take over all renaming functions, and the 'renameuser' right will be removed from the local bureaucrat user group. This is not part of the proposal, but rather a statement of fact of what will happen at the completion of SUL finalization.

We don't have much time before this is deployed, and although we don't need to use it right away), I think that this is an area where we could prevent quite a bit of the pain of global renaming. Thoughts? Ajraddatz (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It is typical that WMF is still failing to give us SUL finalisation, which, when first announced more than a year ago, was claimed to be super-imminent. Now (thankfully) a volunteer wrote the code for a part of the finalisation, i.e. renaming, and it's deployment is even more super-imminent, while the rest of the implementation of WMF's glorious plan (taking away the rename right from bureaucrats) does not look like it will happen. This is bad, because we will have the situation described in the "proposal" above: Stewards will do global renaming, because stewards do global stuff; and bureaucrats do the remaining renaming of local accounts. That is the only possible implementation we can get within 2 days. It means that while a "simple, complete" global renaming is then easily possible, nothing changes for any other SUL situations, where you still need to run after bureaucrats on several wikis.
Last year I created User:MF-Warburg/New SRUC in the panic ahead of the alleged date of SUL finalization. My opinion back then (I think I even wrote it somewhere on Meta, but I don't remember where) was to not panic. That is still my opinion. If we use this opportunity to fusion SRUC and SRSUL, it will be much clearer to people where to request stuff, and easier for stewards and other interested users to see all the requests for global renaming in one page. When the feature is there, it will of course be handled with care, but as long as it works, there should be no problem.
The only thing which could be a problem is (again) the fact that bureaucrats still are able to rename. If they continue to handle local renaming requests in cases where the user probably wants a global rename, just doesn't know enough about MediaWiki accounts on WMF wikis (and probably doesn't care much about other wikis except maybe Commons), that will break a lot of SUL accounts. --MF-W 09:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I do think that the opposite will happen. We will now be enabled to test the global rename tool which is good, afterwards SUL will be finalized and in the end the renameuser right removed from local bureaucrats so that only stewards can rename accounts anymore on both global and local area. That was the plan of the WMF and don't see any changes in the current deployment process. Btw., Legoktm is a WMF contractor who first had to work on Flow and now on SUL finalisation. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course that is good, but the "afterwards" will probably be in August 2015 or so. --MF-W 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
DerHexer is correct. Legoktm wrote this in his role as a contractor for the WMF, not as a volunteer. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Quick note: Global rename policy and talk page. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Elfix points me on the necessity of a Global account naming policy. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. If we need to abide by every individual wiki policy it would be a nightmare. Better to establish a global policy with the global community so that problem does not exist. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
What could be the content? Different languages all have different words that they consider too abusive to be part of a username. --MF-W 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Will it be required that we log entries on a page at Meta? I handle a lot of the requests as a local crat and it would be easier for users during the transition if I could {{done}} their request an page and only use meta for the actual rename. MBisanz talk 14:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd think that we would want to transition requests for renames to meta as much as possible (i.e. putting big notices on local CHU pages). That said, during a transition period, it would probably be acceptable to not log every request here. That's something we should work towards though. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as it is archived, and referenced appropriately with a fully linkable permalink, what does it matter that the request sit on a different wiki? At a point in time we will stop at a local wiki, and you can call that a transition or a change at some point of time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, requests can be accepted in any way that is reasonable. From users identified by WMF cloaks I even accept requests on IRC sometimes [for the currently existing local renaming]. Just a note about your case of planning to accept requests on a local rename request page: We must handle this transition in an intelligent way, otherwise - as I wrote above - continued local renaming by bureaucrats will result in unnecessary breaking of SUL accounts. And certainly there shouldn't be the possibility for unknowing users to run into "first and second class renames" on one page, depending on who will execute the request. --MF-W 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
But nothing has changed in this regard, we just have a new tool. At this point in time the primary responsibility for renames remains with those communities where bureaucrats exist; with stewards undertaking unfulfilled requests or where there is no crats in the community. If they receive second-hand service, they take it up with their community, not our business.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
And how do you expect this tool to work? I guess there'll two fields “old name”, “new name” and one button “global rename now” plus maybe some checkboxes for confirmation, collision warnings or the like (as it is now with Special:Renameuser). I doubt that we can choose not to rename on enwiki, dewiki, or any other specific wiki. As most (global) accounts will have a local account on at least one wiki with bureaucrats, the global rename tool would become completely useless. That wouldn't be the tool I'm waiting for since 2008 or even longer. Or alternatively, the user would still have to tramp to each project with local crats before they can request global renames which would neither simplify nor shorten the process for the requesting user but we were also waiting for. Hence, either one group will be allowed to rename accounts on each and every wiki (let it be stewards, stewards and global renamers, stewards and all crats, or anyone else) what a global rename tool is designed for, or we abandon it completely which would suck. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If primary responsibility rests with the communities on this, then let's change that. With global accounts, the current system of every local wiki with active bureaucrats handling renames is a ridiculous one. Let's get the WMF to do this all at once - make global renaming truly global, and in so doing fix this issue which should have been resolved when centralauth was turned on in the first place. The current system for renaming is ridiculous and patently unfair for those who need to go through it. We can fix it, and I think we should. In fact, I was already drafting an email to Philippe specifically about this. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Not certain that it is in WMF's bailiwick, this is the community's rule. You might be better trying to have the community allow stewards to rename after a period when the local wikis have not undertaken a rename, eg. allow local wikis nn many days to fulfil local moves, and if not undertaken, then a steward will undertake all remaining actions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
You're right, they are unwilling to take action. But you do realize that what you mentioned is already done, right? On projects where the crats are inactive or don't respond to rename requests we do that for them after a while. See a request handled today on SRSUL for an example. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense then. Thanks. MBisanz talk 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and will be leaving notifications for local bureaucrats, informing them of the above plan but also saying that they are not required to participate (since we have no authority to actually enforce it). As such, we should probably update the SRUC page to both 1) be easier to use and 2) reflect global renaming on 1 July. Thoughts? Ajraddatz (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of the feedback I've been getting involves concern that there is no global guidelines for account naming. Personally, I don't think that there should be one, however I would certainly support expanding Global rename policy to include a list of commonly-disallowed usernames by local policies. Examples include promotional usernames, usernames with offensive language, etc. Obviously this will require some case-by-case analysis by stewards. I'll add this to the policy page if nobody objects; we'll also probably need to vote that into official policy status at some point. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants to test the tool before it is rolled out for real, they can use Beta Labs. Any Beta Labs steward (including myself) can grant the right there to anyone who wants to test it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Global renamers[edit]

Something which could help keep us in line with local policies would be expanding the number of users who could rename users globally from just stewards to stewards and some trusted bureaucrats in a global renamers group. I know that there are arguments on both sides for this from past discussions, but I think the benefit would be maximized if global renamers stuck to requests centred around their home projects. They do know a lot about local policies, and that knowledge could be helpful, especially during the transition period. Please let me know what you think, to see if it's worth proposing it on an RfC or some similar means. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as this is done similar to the GR/GS processes, that sounds fine. --Rschen7754 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this thought should be pursued at the moment, as I already said in past discussions. We should first see how stewards will be able to handle the new workload & tools. I fear there might be chaos if too many people can start using global rename when it might not yet be perfect. --MF-W 11:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Also just as there is now a tool, it has been expressed by WMF that there is no change in global rules, and the local wikis maintain their local rules, so it is still a catch-up tool, not first use tool.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
What does that mean? When it comes to global actions surrounding global matters, steward tools take precedence. Or are global blocks and locks also catch-up tools? (Apologies if I've misunderstood here)
Also, please note that this propose has nothing to do with workload, but rather preventing policy issues. I do agree though, no need to implement it right away; I'm trying to see if there would be significant opposition or problems with a proposal for that group. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Instead, WMF expressed that crats will lose their renameuser right as soon as global rename will be enabled and local renames handled by stewards if necessary at all (which will less happen when SUL is finalized). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I registered some BEANSy qualms about the main proposal by email to Ajraddatz, after he promoted the change at en:'s Bureaucrat noticeboard. I think this additional idea would allay many of my fears. However, it does beg the question: why restrict this new tool to Stewards, instead of local Crats, rather than just rolling the tool out to local Crats? --Dweller (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Giving local crats the access to rename accounts across the system (who may not be aware of global issues) would be problematic (not to mention that many crat rights were handed out like candy in the 2000s without any community review, etc.). --Rschen7754 23:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It should be possible to train interested local 'crats on the intricacies and implications of global renames, no? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that people would try and use the tool without being trained on that sort of thing. According to [1] there's hundreds of crats out there and the dissemination of that information is just not possible (don't forget language barriers!). Sure, there's plenty of crats that are inactive for 2+ years, and per AAR we're trying to address that, but it's a lengthy process. Not to mention crats who may be blocked in other wikis but are now able to rename people on those wikis, differences in username policies (Wikivoyage allows corporate accounts!), crats on testwikis and some small wikis (where this is still given out like candy), who would now be able to rename everywhere, etc. And that levels of trust for the bureaucrat right vary quite widely (on some wikis like most Spanish-language wikis, all admins are crats, whereas on enwiki it's much harder than RFA!) That just opens up a can of worms, quite frankly. --Rschen7754 23:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. In that case, offering interested local 'crats a review process for a global rename right along the lines of what Ajraddatz suggested above would seem to be a better way to handle the likely increase in rename requests here. 28bytes (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW it's also not technically possible to let local crats rename globally. That tool will require local renameuser rights on all wikis, so even if 'crats are granted access through a global renamers group, there will be the extra step of adding them to that group (hopefully without too much of a process). I'll be looking at expanding the global renaming policy and ratifying it soon, but unfortunately I'm working full time right now and don't have much internet access. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Technical note: nope, that's not an issue. The tool assumes that anyone with the global rename userright is trusted with local renames, and doesn't check for a local renameuser right. Legoktm (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, must have read the docs wrong/not remembered it correctly. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly worried about the main proposal. Apart from the BEANS issues that worry me, there's the workload. How many active Stewards are there? en: alone did about 350 renames last month. --Dweller (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC) (update: based on my subjective and imprecise [lack of] definition of "active", it looks like roughly 20... which ain't many) --Dweller (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, though some stewards are bureaucrats and will have to shift their renaming activity over here. I personally think that we will have to have global renamers of some sort (and that is how things will probably wind up should we become overwhelmed with the workload), though not everyone is behind the idea. --Rschen7754 00:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"steward", like any other user right name, is not capitalized My main concern about stewards is their lack of timezone coverage, not their overall activity. If stewards can't handle it, we can start an RfC on creating a user group like this one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Most people I've talked to are behind the idea. Ultimately, if there are major workload issues then we can very rapidly get help through the global renamers group. I can understand the concerns with local 'crats not having a global perspective, but these are also generally intelligent and trusted people who bring a wealth of experience. That they can't rename globally but I can (as someone who isn't a crat anywhere here) is pretty silly, so I'll definitely be proposing this group for policy (and workload potentially) reasons. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello stewards, I am Bene*, a bureaucrat from wikidata. I recently saw that global rename has been introduced and one user already has been renamed. In my opinion this is a great tool which makes renaming with SUL much easier. As a bureaucrat I'm quite experienced in renaming and know the tools as well as I understand the global context of SUL. Thus if my help is appreciated I'd be glad to assist. Best regards --Bene* (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi stewards, I am a crat from dewiki. I saw the rename of the user .js. A realy good tool, because a rename is for some user quite a lot of work. Like Bene* I would like to help, if help is needed. Best --Itti (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm also bureaucrat from dewiki and would like to help too. Regards, IW 16:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Like Itti, I support Ajraddatz' proposal, and if it's accepted would apply for the global renaming right, restricting myself to renaming users with homewiki .de. Greetings, --MBq (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm bureaucrat at dewiki for serveral years now and I renamed hundreds of users there. I would like to help renaming globally. --APPER 16:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am regular user (not a crat or steward or anything else) that wants his SUL to be gloablly renamed, but I havent found a request page for that. We just got the message through tech wiki news that it will be possible to rename a user globally but our crats dont know yet where to request such a rename. Can you help me or we will get the instructions in some other way soon? Thanks.--Hypothalamus (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

SRUC but it will not be possible until (at the earliest) July 9. Also, there is currently no global rename policy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See the proposal for the group at Global renamers‎. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Deploy and initial testing[edit]

Hello everybody, we've just deployed global rename and I've done two test renames (one dummy account and "Jan S..." to ".js"). Both renames went totally fine! I would recommend you to abstain from doing global renames for the next 24 hours, to let things settle and make sure there aren't any subtle breakages we're not aware of yet. If you want to test global rename, you can still do that on beta wikimedia. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, hoo and lego, for creating this tool! I'm really looking forward to fulfilling user rename requests much easier now. I'm confident that most local crats will agree here. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Notes from the product manager for SUL[edit]

Hello everyone.

For those that don't know me, I'm Dan, the product manager responsible for the SUL finalisation. Some of you might know me as Deskana.

I asked Legoktm to start working on GlobalRenameUser as it's a prerequisite to the SUL finalisation; RenameUser detaches local accounts from global ones, and that can't keep happening after we've performed the finalisation. This extension will, post-finalisation, totally replace RenameUser.

As we developed the tool to work primarily post-finalisation, I realise this tool isn't really that useful right now. We're only deploying it in case you want to use it. If you don't want to use it yet for whatever reason, that's totally fine.

Our current plan for the SUL finalisation is to have all of the engineering work finished by the end of September 2014. The actual finalisation will happen after that at some point yet to be determined. The community engagement aspect is as important as the engineering work; if I set the date for the finalisation too close to the present, then there will be floods of rename requests that overwhelm the stewards. We need to be mindful of every community member involved in this, and that includes both those being forcibly renamed and the stewards that will have to answer lots of questions about it. I want to set a realistic date, and I can't do that just yet.

I'll keep in touch as things develop. Thanks!

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dan, I really can't believe you want to delay the use of this great tool, now that it's ready. I'm sooo thankful for it and that I was honoured to be "tested" with. It had been a horror for me since weeks, knowing that when I want to change my name that I will have to:
  1. visit all sister projects I edited
  2. look for all the different bureaucrats/user rename pages there
  3. try to figure out all the local rules & languages
  4. post my requests one-by-one
  5. post a global request on meta for the rest
  6. post a local request on meta, too
  7. be prepared for a lot of questions in return
  8. keep track of all those requests for days or weeks
  9. dealing with a high risk of login conflicts, distracting me from editing during all that time
  10. keep checking for SUL finalisation every couple hours/days on multiple sister projects
  11. ... 12. ... 13. ... ...
The community really needs this tool to be unleashed asap. I can't be thankful enough to Hexer, Hoo and Lego for establishing it! (Sorry if my words should sound unpolite? I'm no native speaker and intend no offense nor personal attack.)--.js (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry .js, we're still going to be using it. We just need to finalize some of the policy elements and adjust the appropriate pages (which sounds like a simple task and really should be). Ajraddatz (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi .js. I'm glad your global rename went well! I don't want to delay the usage of GlobalRenameUser at all; my point was that it is up to the stewards to decide whether they want to use it or not. I'm glad they decided to. They will take a little bit of time to establish the policy for its usage, then I'm sure it'll see a lot of use. :-) --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I created a list on dewiki with local-only active accounts. I and the other local bureaucrats will try to help people on that list to get a sul accounts.
Why is it still allowed to create local only accounts? On dewiki half of the active (=edit last 30 day) local only accounts have been created within the last five month. Not stopping the creation of new local-only accounts contrasts the goal of having only sul accounts. Merlissimo (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
We're working on that too, see bugzilla:67901. Legoktm (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ping User:DGarry (WMF) and User:Legoktm: I just realized that there are private wikis... And since they are detached from SUL it's important that accounts can be renamed there. I assume the RenameUser extension will be kept activated on those wikis? Trijnsteltalk 17:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: That's correct. We're just going to remove RenameUser from wikis hooked up to CentralAuth so that it can't be used to detatch local accounts from global ones; if a wiki isn't hooked up to CentralAuth, there's no reason for us to remove the RenameUser extension from it. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Until now I was under the impression that first, only the renameuser right would be taken away from bureaucrats (at a yet-unknown point of time), so that stewards could still use it for fixing problems with detached accounts that might come up from failed rename attempts of the past, or any other problems (up to, maybe, a yet-unknown point of time when the RenameUser extension would be disabled completely). Is that still correct? --MF-W 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: After the finalisation, RenameUser will be removed from all wikis that are hooked up to CentralAuth; given that it can detach local accounts from global accounts, leaving it in place will just mean a second finalisation further will have to be performed further down the line. The SUL team are instead designing tools (such as a global account merger, and global rename) to serve the same use cases after the finalisation (i.e. "The finalisation means I now have six separate global accounts. Can I get them merged into one?"). In the interim period, our current plan is for RenameUser to remain enabled so that it can be used as it is presently. If the SUL team does decide to remove RenameUser in the interim period, we would be sure to inform the stewards well before we did so. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, it's not planned to remove the RenameUser extension, it was just planned to remove the rights from all (local) groups. Even CentralAuth's global rename relies on the RenameUser extension locally to do the "hard work" so removing the extension would also break that. But as we will get global account merge functionality, it wont be necessary to use the local rename user functionality after the SUL finalization has been completed (and I guess the global group holders that in theory could assign themselves the rights to use the local functionality wont do so). Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Legoktm informed me of this afterwards. The user-facing effect is the same; as it breaks unification nobody should be performing local renames, and since all the use cases are met by other tools nobody should really have the ability to do it either. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admin on oc.wikibooks[edit]

Hello, Just found your notice to Cedric31 on oc.wikipedia. I do not know what is the status of oc.wikibooks, but I'm ready to help keeping an eye on it. Just tell me through the oc.wp user discussion system. Thanks in advance, --Jfblanc (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We will check Cedric31's status in a month, which is the required duration, before removing the rights. --Rschen7754 07:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just found your answer here (seems you did not answer on the wp as asked, well, never mind). I'm trying to rock the Occitan users on wikipedia (and now on the other oc wikis) to have these properly followed up. I'll keep you updated. Regards. --Jfblanc (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


I just redirected Steward requests/SUL requests, which had no requests on it at the moment, to Steward requests/Username changes (and moving over the content relevant to requesting global account deletions) in order to reduce confusion about the often-overlapping scope of the pages. I hope nobody minds. --MF-W 21:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so! Ajraddatz (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dsimic: Could you please explain what is confusing or how to fix that? I know the ridiculous enwiki attitude of reverting with ambiguous edit summaries but elsewhere we tend to like discussing first. It's much more productive. It would be especially helpful if you could explain what is confusing and maybe... help to fix it? Ajraddatz (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment either. Should the redirect be deleted in the meantime, in your opinion? --MF-W 21:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! I totally agree that discussing things is the key, so please allow me to explain – hopefully we'll end up with a good and usable solution.
I've read MF-Warburg's description of the merger between SRSUL and SRUC, and it all makes sense. However, let's have a look at it from my perspective as I'm by no means an expert for the Meta-Wiki stuff and procedures, thus I'm a typical editor that comes over here to do something related to usurping an account for his/her unified login. In my opinion, when the SRSUL is redirected to Steward requests/Username changes, the lengthy decriptions there are much more confusing when compared to clean and short descriptions in Steward requests/SUL requests.
The whole thing with unified logins, usurpations of accounts, etc. is quite confusing and—in my opinion—any further lengthy description turns editors away from trying to resolve already existing accounts preventing them from getting a clean unified login. You know, one spends some time figuring out what the unified login is and how to get it, then goes through the merging procedure, and lastly discovers that some accounts are standindg in the way of a clean unified login. Then the editor spends some more time searching for what's to be done, and then lands onto a page that describes so much stuff, while he/she needs just to request an usurpation! "What the..." is a natural and expected reaction. :) BTDT, so I know how it would feel. :)
In other words, the reason why I've reverted the redirection is pure usability. Editors should be encouraged to resolve already existing accounts with the same usernames before the automated SUL finalization, and such a lengthy book-style page isn't that great. It might be redirected again, but it should be improved so there's a clear and easy-to-read description at the top of page saying what's to be done for unified logins.
Just my $.02. :) — Dsimic (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts, please? :) — Dsimic (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Dsimic, «pure usability. Editors should be encouraged to resolve already existing accounts» confuses me quite. The whole point of Steward requests/SUL requests is its scary red warning "please don't use me! please ask locally on 200 wikis if they have a bureaucrat and then come here when your shoes are completely consumed". I have no idea how that can be more user friendly than a single page with some text that nobody reads anyway and a friendly yellow link "just click this one and we'll solve all your problems". --Nemo 21:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, now I'm confused with the "friendly yellow link"? :) Where's that link? Regarding the "pure usability", that's how I see it, as Steward requests/SUL requests is pretty much the (optional) last step in anyone's journey toward a clean unified login, so that step should be as clear as possible instead of presenting a lengthy description. Just as I already wrote above, redirecting to Steward requests/Username changes would be fine if we had a short note at the top that really pops and tells what's to be done for unified logins.
Hope it makes more sense. — Dsimic (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The things that can be requested on SRSUL are usurpations (i.e. renames) and deletions of global accounts. Renames can also be requested on SRUC. I don't see how global account deletions are that important and frequent that they need an extra request page. --MF-W 09:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a steward, and I'm not sure that I understand the difference between the two pages. --Rschen7754 16:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Time to start afresh. One page that has global renames as one section, and another that looks at usurps/merges/... as another. We also need to look at the text as it is now redundant for the situation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm. I rather mind. Until sul finalization it should be as it used to be. I once requested deleting sul for my second acc and I think other may want to do it too. The redirect could be misleading now. --Base (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing changed. You can still request account deletions. --MF-W 22:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Global rename is meanwhile functional. It becomes less and less senseful to have separate pages for 1.) requesting global renames and still-needed local renames, 2.) local renames and account deletions. Any more opinions on this? --MF-W 21:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

SRUC is enough. Stewards who do the renames know what to do in each case anyway, and having two pages makes it more confusing for new users. --Glaisher (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Having it all under one roof, which would be the Steward requests/Username changes page, is perfectly fine. It's the description on Steward requests/Username changes what was confusing, as I've already described it above. — Dsimic (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I implemented the redirect again. --MF-W 21:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. If the SRUC page is not clear or helpful enough someone should be bold and fix it. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The template used on SRUC is much more complicated and tedious than that on former SR/SUL. I hope it's ok if I continue using the old format on my requests. –xeno 00:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, and current SRUC page says this on top:
    This is also the page where stewards can be requested to deal with problems relating to the unified login feature. These include usurpation of accounts and deletion of global accounts.
    This is better than the earlier version, IIRC; however, later in the page that isn't explained well as pretty much everything deals with renaming accounts. In my book, that's confusing as no instructions are given how to actually ask to usurp an account, for example. I've thought about being bold and adding more language to the page, but that would involve additional request templates, so I've lost the momentum required for discussing that here first. :) However, here we are, probably that should be discussed. — Dsimic (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ghost" admins on a "ghost wiki"[edit]

This wiki has long been redirected to the new wiki at Wikimedia UK's own servers (notice the URL redirect when you click the first link). But apparently, the admins and bureaucrats weren't removed and are still there, which isn't that big of a deal, but does pollute Special:CentralAuth. I did in fact request removal of my own rights at SRP#Jasper Deng@ukwikimedia, and it was done, so it shows that removal can still be done.

However, I knew there were more such admins and thanks to User:Legoktm's SQL query here, there are 42 other such admins, which probably should be removed too. I was going to post this at SRP but it would've been very cumbersome to do so.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a chapter wiki, where stewards do as requested, it is not stewards' role to pre-emptively take any additions or removals without requests. I would suggest that this should be addressed to WMUK, and they will make the requests to us that they wish for us to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Except, they have no more control over this wiki - it is for all intents and purposes closed. I'm talking about their vestigial wiki on the production cluster, not their current site.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand to which wiki you refer. They have full control over it in the ownership sense, and they can fall back to it at any point of time they choose to do so. WMUK can submit a bugzilla to have all the admins/crats removed as it is simply theirs to control, or they can come to stewards and ask for them to be cleansed one by one. It is not stewards' role to determine what WMUK does with their chapter wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Jasper for raising this and leaving a note on the UK chapter's water cooler. Please feel free to remove the admin and crat rights from the accounts on the ghost wiki. Would you like a request filed through bugzilla or is this post enough? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): I think that bugzilla is best, as they have a script that does this when they close wikis. Otherwise we have to rely on external tools to query the data.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a particular product and component I should add the bug to? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Bugzilla Component: Site request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Request done bugzilla:68737  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You beat me to it :-) Thank you for the help everyone. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not something which should have a bug, as that's an issue which can and should be solely resolved by stewards. No need to involve shell users (sysadmins) or anything here. I've closed the bug. Hoo man (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

sDrewth talked me into doing this server side using my shell access, so... Yes check.svg Done. The list of all removed rights can be found here. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a FYI, we do remove rights on all closed wikis per CPP. --Rschen7754 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
To note: CPP would not seem to apply to chapter wikis, the lead introductory scope would seem to explicitly exclude it, presumably they are not projects. So I would agree that we should do this as following good practice, but we cannot require this as a policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The CPP definitely applies to chapter wikis. Some of them were closed using the standard closure process (see this). The CPP itself says that 'This policy defines the process to close (...) a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation'. Ruslik (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I beg to differ. None of the process mentioned there was followed, anyway the moving of the wiki to an offsite wiki by a UK registered body has nothing to do with the language committee, and I would love to see them have tried. So it would clearly fall outside of that policy. Chapters are not projects.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The policy is about wikis, not projects by the way (see the part quoted by Ruslik0). And the language committee was merely the group which introduced that policy. Vogone (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

216 URLs in MediaWiki namespace[edit]

Reedy kindly made a list: [2]. Those must be replaced with their successors; or, when there isn't any, commented out/removed and reported. When these are done, the URLs in user namespaces will need to be checked as well, because sometimes user scripts are imported from site scripts... Other than stewards and global sysops, obvious candidates for the work are global interface editors: 99of9, Elitre, Halfak,, Jack Phoenix, Jon, Krenair, Krinkle, Matma Rex, Nikerabbit, Petrb, Tpt, can you help? One edit is better than zero. :-) --Nemo 14:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I copied it into - removed some entries I did earlier and removed arwiki and bnwiki entries per Helder's comment above. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 21:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to fix the Commons interface pages. Is there some place where I can look up whether a script has a successor and what the new URL is? Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
mw:Tool Labs/Collection of issues after Toolserver shutdown partially works in such a way. --MF-W 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-related: I also made --Krenair (talkcontribs) 05:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

External maps embedded[edit]

FYI, may need some cleanup: Wikivoyage/Lounge#Maps_loading_external_resources. --Nemo 18:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, that's worrisome. Thank you for letting us know. I will try to get in touch with you on IRC to discuss the matter. Snowolf How can I help? 15:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

mr-wikipedia & mr wikimedia projects has independant local policy for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts.[edit]


Season's greetings to all the Steward community members. This is to inform you that, Marathi language ; i.e. mr-wikipedia & mr wikimedia projects have independant local policy for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts (Ref:Mr-wiki policy decesion). As follows:

1) Inactivity without single edit or single admin activity of minimum six years can lead to removal of an admin/sysop/beurocrat with following riders 2) In any case minimum one Marathi language Sysop/beuracrat has to be their at mr-wikiproject. Until either a new one is elected or an old one comes back. Marathi language projects sysopship of Marathi language people can not and should not go to null and all mr-wiki project indiepandance be vehemently defended and not compromised at all costs and independance retained in favour of Marathi people only for ever. 3) Old sysops removed after six years of inactivity can request coming back onboard with advise from rest of existing sysops on local wiki projects and appointed directly by beurocrat need not have local reelection. Marathi Wiki projects stand for sysop stability and avoid undue democratisation of knowledge projects to maintian neutrality and substance.

Please take the above into consideration and update the info at suitable places at your end

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: Can you confirm that mrwiki knows that desysop requests can be filed at SRP? I don't see any past request in the logs. Also, can you link to the policy in the other mr-language projects? --Rschen7754 02:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Here with we confirm Mr-wiki is very well aware of SRP. The above given new policy has been adopted last year, the previous policy was permanant sysopship. While community is more for retaining experienced hands rather than retiring them but there were couple of self resignations which you can see from logs.
Policy page links for rest of the projects will be intimated at this noticeboard indipendantly soon.
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you; we will cancel the process for mrwiki. We would appreciate links for the other projects when you have a chance. --Rschen7754 03:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome for above support, below section has policy intimation regarding Marathi language wiktionary as requested by your good selves.
Warm Rgds
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk)

mr-Wiktionary project has independant local policy for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts.[edit]

As per following policy decesion at mr- wiktionary, similler to Marathi wikipedia following is the policy.

1) Inactivity without single edit or single admin activity of minimum six years can lead to removal of an admin/sysop/beurocrat with following riders 2) In any case minimum one Marathi language Sysop/beuracrat has to be their at mr-wikiproject. Until either a new one is elected or an old one comes back. Marathi language projects sysopship of Marathi language people can not and should not go to null and all mr-wiki project indiepandance be vehemently defended and not compromised at all costs and independance retained in favour of Marathi people only for ever. 3) Old sysops removed after six years of inactivity can request coming back onboard with advise from rest of existing sysops on local wiki projects and appointed directly by beurocrat need not have local reelection. Marathi Wiki projects stand for sysop stability and avoid undue democratisation of knowledge projects to maintian neutrality and substance.

Please take the above into consideration and update the info at suitable places at your end

  • At mr Wiktionary wikt:mr:user:श्रीहरि are due for review. Certainly I will intiate the process locally and intimate the same at SRP as suggested by you above. But before that mr Wiktionary wikt:mr:user:श्रीहरि is an expert in Marathi language grammer and actually has one of the prime actor in Marathi Wiktionary grammar formats and I will inform on his talk page as well as I will try to contact him online through community and try to get back him active again. If that does not work then will complete removal process duely as per the local policy.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one - did the community ever have a full discussion on this? We respect the right of communities to make their own decisions, but we want to make sure that this was approved by the community... --Rschen7754 04:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
At mr wiktionary the notice has been left for a year and actually a discussion had taken place at mr-wikipedia already and the people are same so no point in going over to another project and discussing again. It is just technicality still if you want we can get it voted in due course. At the end wikis are not democrasies who is present their word is support to matter. If you dont agree we can agree with your rule books temporarily but frankly enough we are not will not be comfortable that meta to use this opportunity to reduce our project indipendance in any manner.
Thanks Rgds
Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
We will cancel the process on mr.wiktionary for this round. The first step in the AAR process also involves receiving objections from the community, and since you are expressing objections here, carrying out AAR would cause the same result (no desysop). --Rschen7754 02:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admin on is.wikibooks[edit]

Hi, got a message from Rschen7754 regarding inactivity: I doubt there will be any discussion on the matter within the 'community' since it is not very active so you can just go ahead and remove my rights. :) --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and thank you for your service! --Rschen7754 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin activity review on[edit]

The Croatian Wikipedia is in the process of creating rules in regards to activities of administrators as part of an overarching review of the rules for electing administrators, and administrator rules. Vodomar (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vodomar: Thanks for letting us know. Can you please inform us again when the discussion has concluded? --Rschen7754 06:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we can. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admins on li.wikt[edit]

Inactive admins may only be removed by vote: [3] [4]. Stewards should not interfere with that on li.wikt. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --Rschen7754 13:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, while there is no formal policy on admins on li:, I ask you NOT to remove anyone's admin rights. The user in question has left the wiki but I would love to see him return. Removing his bureaucrat status would probably lower the odds of him returning. There are at the moment only 2 active users at this wiki, and while I have not consulted the other user, I think there is a consensus on this issue. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 21:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steinbach: can you please have the other user comment? --Rschen7754 22:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue is currently being discussed at the local village pump. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 16:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The other user has commented ;) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Pahles has made a local edit, and there is clear consensus, so we will not remove the rights. --Rschen7754 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

lv wiki[edit]

Hello! Can local community suggest some additional users? --Edgars2007 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To be removed for inactivity? lv.wikipedia is always free to make its own local inactivity policy, using a more strict criteria than 2 years. --Rschen7754 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The local community is also free to undertake its own reviews, and identify and locally manage inactivity. Without a local policy, you would need to utilise the AAR standard of two years, and the contact methodology. Stewards encourage communities to have an active management regime in place, and what you are seeing here is what we consider the base standard, and a means for us to capture the truly inactive. For the why, please read the discussion that took place in the development of the policy. Thanks for the query.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rschen7754, Billinghurst: Yes, to be removed for inactivity. I was talking about adding some sysops to the list. We had a discussion about this a few years ago, but nothing happened, so I think my colleagues wouldn't mind to add some users on the list. We could make a mini voting in our Village pump, if needed. --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that if they have been inactive for more than two years, that you add the same pings that have been done by stewards, and add them to that list with links. It isn't usual, though it is not contrary to the policy, and shouldn't be too hard to follow through (and I think that Rschen7754 will probably [deservedly] give me a nipple-cripple for saying that) You can check activity via Wiki: (stewardrylist 'cratsno standard bot policysummary)  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Something like that would also need the backing of the community, as we're going off the list generated in January to be fair to all wikis. But there are no admins who fall into that category on this particular wiki. --Rschen7754 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. When I did the wording, I was fairly careful with it to allow broadest action. AAR states two years inactivity (one marker); what is inactivity (second marker). It states that stewards will do a semi-annual or annual review (how we would compile our lists), and where we would and would not act. It does not say that AAR can only be applied at/following that review, though indicates that we are not going to be doing it on the anniversary of someone stopping action. I would agree that outside of steward's audit, that stewards will not act due to an anniversary of inaction without a community review/discussion taking place. PLUS, if we got to that stage, I would think that a community is sufficiently mature and better able to have its own review process based on the global standard, especially as it will be in the language of that community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that our opinions are that far off, actually... but in this case, there aren't any admins in that gap on this wiki between 2 years and the cutoff for the AAR lists, and hopefully AAR2015 won't have a 12 month delay Face-smile.svg --Rschen7754 02:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And our preference is for communities to do their own reviews, to the global standard or something that each community improves upon. Stewards only wish to be the fallback mechanism in the minimum number of situations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that this wouldn't be fair to other Wikipedias. But we have some 2 or 3 candidates, that aren't on the list. lv:User:Tail, one of our 3 bureaucrats, whose last normal edit was in 2008, in 2013 just said, that she is currently retired. lv:User:Zummis made his last log action in 2009 and he said, that he supports democracy, if the thing goes to voting (I think this can be some kind of voting Face-smile.svg). The last one lv:User:Yyy (second of our three bureaucrats) is tricky one. He does show up some time, but his last log action is in 2011. So, if we ( community) can't add them on the list (and notify them at their talk pages etc.), we can make an official voting at @lvwiki and then go to... [here should be some link to page @Meta, I know that you guys have one for this purpose] (our bureaucrats can't remove the the rights from sysops and bureaucrats, just give them to sysops)? --Edgars2007 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can then go to Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access :) --MF-W 11:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admins on :mgwiki[edit]

Hello, I have just initiated a community discussion about the inactive admins on mg:Wikipedia:Mpandrindra, and requested the community about keeping my admin status. It is also important to note that 4 admins over 5 are flagged as inactive, which may lead to leave only one admin on this wiki, this is the main reason why I have asked to maintain my status there. -- AlNo (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Alno:, the purpose of the review is to see that the appointed admins are active, not to strip away rights. It is to allow the open discussion in a community about activity, and the knowledge of who is and is not active, and to allow the community to make the decisions that best work for that community. So thanks for the contact and good luck with that discussion, we look forward to hearing your outcomes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)