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.
Stewards
Requests
For stewards
Noticeboards


Close Requests for comment/Global Interface editors group policy[edit]

Could a (preferably uninvolved) steward please close this RfC? Also note my proposed change, which might not have enough consensus. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that no MassMessage has been sent about this, since it is already a de facto guideline. If you would like to send one, feel free. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Election[edit]

Hi Stewards,

Next year's election is coming up quickly and we are in need of 3 stewards who will volunteer to serve as scrutineers. Please see the instructions for further information. It's preferred that the scrutineers are Stewards who don't use en.wiki as their home project and have not served in the previous year (Vituzzu, Mathonius, Tegel, and Matanya) in order to preserve the integrity of the election. Coordination with the election commission will occur here. With the current timetable voting will conclude by 00:00 (UTC) on December 8, at which point the Stewards will be able to finish the scrutineering and certify the results. Please feel free to contact myself or the other members of the election commission (TParis and QuiteUnusual) if you have any questions. Best, Mike VTalk 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I can help with that this year. -Barras talk 21:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I could help also. I'm a native English speaker, but I haven't been active on enwiki for years and don't treat it as my home wiki. If you'd prefer someone even more withdrawn from it, then I don't mind someone being picked over me either :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I looked over my enwiki contributions and I've participated in some discussions over the last six months. Might be better to have someone more withdrawn than that. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If stuck for numbers, I can, though I am an admin there, with occasional edits and non-controversial admin thingies, though otherwise completely out of the wikipolitics. Definitely not my 'home' wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
count on me. Matanya (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You did it the last year, so you probably can't do it this year again. :( -Barras talk 19:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I should be considered only as a last resort, as EnWiki is my primary home wiki. -- Avi (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Count me in for now, though I can't promise anything. I could be very busy then so I could withdraw. I'll keep you updated. Trijnsteltalk 11:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
As you probably noticed, I'm a no for this. en.wiki is my home project and I'm on the Election Committee this year so clearly I can't also be a vote teller. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

After some discussion, we have selected Barras, Trijnstel, and Matanya to serve as this year's scrutineers. We have also selected Billinghurst to be a reserve member, should one of the scrutineers be unable to fulfill his or her duties. Thank you to all who have volunteered. On behalf of the Electoral Commission, Mike VTalk 22:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As an update, it looks like that I will be fully able to help after all. So that's good news. :) Trijnsteltalk 23:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Enabling global abuse filters on more wikis[edit]

Hi. How about enabling GAF on ur.wiktionary.org? There are no sysops. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

According to legoktm, gerrit:170311 will fix this. Maybe it's about time to make GAF a policy... PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
As requested by PiRSquared17, I hereby state I agree with the suggestion to make GAF a policy. Vogone (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I proposed add filter this pl.wikibooks.org - latest is a lot of spamers. Kompowiec2 (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Kompowiec2: The plWB community can be added at its own request by undertaking a community consensus, and then we will submit a bugzilla. This is mentioned in case you wish to escalate the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Enabled on medium wikis now!. --Glaisher (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Car games abuse filter[edit]

For wikis being hit by the current "car games" spam (ie. wikis not on global filters), you can have a copy of the (current) effective filter at toollabs:paste/view/8ff77e10  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This spam stream seems over.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft of RfC on global abusefilters[edit]

Feel free to edit it as you see fit: Requests_for_comment/Global_AbuseFilter. Mirror any changes to the proposal on Requests_for_comment/Global_AbuseFilter/Proposal (I couldn't think of any other way of having translated proposal with unified comments, except for moving comments to a subpage, which is even more confusing). I've already asked several users (including stewards) for input, but nobody has come forward. I would like to remove the {{draft}} within the next few hours, if possible. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

administrator on the tahitian wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I'm currently an user/editor on the wikipedia in tahitian [1]. There are not a lot of user or editor in this wikipedia and no sysop. In fact, a sysop was elected a long time ago but now the sysop is gone. How can we organise to make a new election ? I agree to be a candidate.--Juster (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just start a discussion at w:ty:Wikipedia:Community_Portal like the previous one. After some time (> 1 week) place a request at Steward requests/Permissions. Ruslik (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikispecies going to the wolf pack: please help![edit]

The only active crat on WS, plus all admins have ganged together and are not playing by the rules. I have just been blocked for one day by an admin User:Accassidy, allegedly for "intimidating behaviour/harrassment", when in fact it was me being harrassed! Copied from my talk page:


Warning: Edit conflicts

WARNING!!!, you are again working simultaneously on my edits. I consider this as vandalism, which can result in punitive measures under the wiki rules. Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Stephen, I am very sad that you have caused this reaction from Mariusm and that you are having an argument elsewhere over individual commas in references. Furthermore, I can see no real purpose in taking a list of publications off an Author Page and creating a separate Category page just to list the same publications. This is simply making work for the sake of it and ensures that anyone seeking information has to keep clicking for longer. I refer to Thomas Pennington Lucas in this case, but no doubt there are others. These additional Category pages are not standard, as you seem to think. This template Template:Lucas,TP, 1889a has stood since July and was inoffensively enhanced today by WikiKlaas. Then you stepped in, I deduce because you are watching his edits on "Recent Changes", and the template has now gone through a radical and un-necessary change, including an argument over a comma. I have tried patiently over the last few weeks to guide you into more co-operative behaviour, but this has clearly failed. I am going to put a temporary block on your editing privileges later today unless you can give me a meaningful and sincere promise that this behaviour will stop. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


The reaction from Mariusm that I "provoked" was nothing but this: I edited a template page that I had created and nobody else had edited. I edited only a noinclude section of that template. At the same time, Mariusm was editing a page which used that template. That's it!! That is what caused Mariusm's "reaction"!! As for User:WikiKlaas, we were having a discussion, which was not going too well, but he made no complaint and we are trying to work things out. So, for those two "reasons", Accassidy threatened to block me! When I told him that if he did, I would take the issue to stewards, and he would have to face the consequences of his abuse of admin powers, he blocked me for "intimidating behaviour/harrassment"! Please can someone revert the block and talk to him about the correct use of his admin powers? Surely he cannot use them against me for "reasons" which don't make sense?? Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, my reasons against the validity of the block are as follows:

(1) Two reasons were stated in the block warning, one of which concerned an abusive warning that User:Mariusm posted on my talk page in response to what he considered to be an "edit conflict", but which was no such thing (I has simply returned to a template page for which I was the only editor, to finish it off, and made changes only to a noinclude section). The other reason had something to do with a discussion that was in progress between WikiKlaas and myself. This discussion had not yet finished, and WikiKlaas had made no complaint regarding it.

(2) As an admin, User:Accassidy surely does not have the right to use his admin powers to force me into behaving how he thinks I should behave, when I hadn't broken any actual rules. Our only active crat, User:Dan Koehl, has quickly backed him up on this. Koehl came to WS recently and forced the resignation of our previous sole active crat User:OhanaUnited, just because Ohana was trying to maintain a fair-minded attitude to the disputes that were going on Stho002 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: The broader issue here concerns aggressive territoriality in WS, by Mariusm and a handful of others. My understanding is that they have no right to restrict edit access by other users to sections of the wiki which they prefer to work on. They refuse to compromise or cooperate with me, so Accassidy and Dan Koehl put all the blame on me in order to try to "solve the problem" Stho002 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about local blocks ought to be addressed thru local channels and procedures. Please file a block appeal within the local projects, so that the adminis can review it and discuss it. Snowolf How can I help? 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowolf: Unfortunately, that isn't an option in this case. The local channels and procedures are controlled by disputants. WS really is controlled by a "wolf pack" now. I ask you or any other steward to (1) assess the reasons given for my block; and (2) act accordingly. Stho002 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
PS: Crat Dan Koehl has promoted to admin all those who are demanding that I keep out of their "territory" Stho002 (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Stewards are not a global Arbitration Committee or an appeal venue for local blocks, and we cannot review local blocks. Local blocks should be reviewed by uninvolved local administrators. 10 wikispecies administrators were active in the last month. I hope you're not trying to say that all of them are not impartial. Snowolf How can I help? 01:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The reality is that those who are impartial (of which there are several) don't want to get involved in any potential disputes which might put them in danger. Local blocks can surely not be given at the whim of individual or groups of colluding local admins? I suggest that the block contravenes global policy Stho002 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
PS: OhanaUnited is also one of the 10 admins, but he has been forced to leave after the "wolf pack" turned on him. Many of the other admins may have made 1 or 2 edits in the last month, but they are not available at the moment Stho002 (talk)
All I want is a clear set of rules which everyone on WS must follow. We don't have that, so they can effectively make up the rules as they go along Stho002 (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Three quick comments: a) I can't think of any global policy regulating blocks on individual projects, could you point me to which global policy you think is applicable here? b) If you do not appeal your block on that project, asking for an uninvolved admin to review it, then no uninvolved admin can review it. I can only advise you to do so, as that is the first venue of appeal. c) To your earlier statement about lack of active crats: I could three active 'crats this month, plus two active since September (Maxim might have last edited in September but he's active on enwiki and I'm sure he replies to emails :)). I would really suggest that you take this matter to Wikispecies by appealing your block on your talk page so an uninvolved administrator can review it. Snowolf How can I help? 02:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowolf: WS does not have the same level of activity as WP. If I appeal my block on my talk page, nobody will even read it. All the uninvolved admins are ducking for cover as we have a biased crat who has already forced the only other active crat to leave. The other nominal crats don't actually do anything on the site (though they may make a trivial edit every few months just to remain seen as "active") Stho002 (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you do not wish to appeal your block on your talk page, then we cannot help you either. Said uninvolved admins cannot be said to be ducking for cover if they received no appeal at all. And it seems to me that Keith Edkins has made over 50 edits this month, so he can hardly be called inactive. Snowolf How can I help? 03:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowolf: At the moment it is only a 1 day block, so by the time I raise an uninvolved admin (I already have emailed one, at the time he was editing, but received no reply), I should be unblocked anyway (Edkins must be in a completely different time zone to me, as I have never seen him actively editing). But it is the principle I object to. I didn't do anything to justify that block. I may have in some sense annoyed Acassidy and others, but not enough to justify a block and their reasons given for the block are completely bogus. I have made my point Stho002 (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
And bringing the issue here in this manner (splattering it over other pages) is really going to resolve the issue? Seems like an escalation to me. It is extremely rare to see a blameless block, and I would usually send a person back to the community to reflectively review their edits and cooperatively look to resolve an issue. Nothing will be done from the outside, these communities are self-governing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)