Stewards' noticeboard

←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.

• This is not the place for stewards requests. To make a new request, see steward requests and requests and proposals .
• For illustration of steward policies and use, see the steward handbook .
• See also: Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard.
• This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.

Stewards

• About stewards
• Elections
• History

Requests

• CheckUser information
• Global blocks & locks
• Global rights
• Local bot rights
• Local rights
• Account renaming
• Miscellaneous requests
• URL blacklisting
• Title/username blacklisting

For stewards

• Help
• Policies
• Bugs
• Mailing list
• #wikimedia-stewards^connect

Noticeboards

• Access policy noticeboard
• Stewards' noticeboard

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Globally locked user requesting an unblock for sock account on enwiki

Sam8521 has requested an unblock at their user talk page on enwiki. It's been a long time since they were blocked (~10 years) and I'd ordinarily grant the request just on the basis that they've moved on from high school, but this account is a sock of Samlaptop85213, which is globally locked. They claim to have emailed the stewards a couple of times and got no response. What's the best way forward here? Could a steward please have a look at it? GoldenRing (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The lock was for old cross-wiki vandalism. I have no objections to the user editing again under one username; if they continue to vandalize then we can issue blocks or locks as appropriate. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I sent numerous e-mails to the Stewards this month requesting for my main account to be unlocked. An administrator has even given me access to my talk page on my main account back in 2011. There are several articles on the English Wikipedia that need updating and I feel like having my editing privaliges back on my original account will show that I can be trusted editing on a well known site. I also need to change the account name to Samtastic95 as a few years ago I changed my online nickname from Samlaptop to Samtastic. The account Samtastic is already taken.--Sam8521 (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Help user caught in IP block

Hello! Where would I ask for help with a user caught in an IP block on meta.wiki? The user is DuncanHill. I'm an en.wiki sysop and know this user to be reliable and trustworthy. They claim to be caught in IP block here [1] and cannot even edit their own talk page to ask for help. Jehochman (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I will look into this. WM:RFH next time. — regards, Revi 19:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Marco was faster than me. — regards, Revi 19:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks all for the help. One further question - is there any way in future to request help without having to impose on others? DuncanHill (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @DuncanHill: You could post to Talk:SRG.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: Do you mean I could ask there now? As obviously I couldn't have done so while blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @DuncanHill: Special:Contact/stewards would be the best bet. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jon Kolbert: That needs to be added to the notice people get when trying to edit. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @DuncanHill: I'm a bit confused as to why you weren't able to edit, the block settings on the block you indicated on Jehochman's talk were anon-only, 16:28, 18 May 2019: Green Giant (meta.wikimedia.org) globally blocked 188.29.164.0/23 (expires on 18 August 2019 at 16:28, anonymous only) (edits · IP check · whois) (Long-term abuse: per request (changed to anon only on request)) (remove | modify). Unless you were affected by another block? Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jon Kolbert: "This IP address is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

  21:05, 16 May 2019 Green Giant talk contribs blocked 188.29.164.0/23 talk with an expiration time of 3 months (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Long-term abuse: per request)" is what it says. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @DuncanHill: You could have posted there as an IP while blocked.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: Are you sure? 'It was the IP address that was blocked'. So you are saying that a blocked IP can edit there, and a non-blocked account can't? DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  @DuncanHill: I've been told before that global blocks don't affect Meta, so any IP can edit there, as long as it isn't blocked on meta.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: Well I suggest you get your IP blocked and try it for yourself. As it is, there is no way in hell I'm going to log out when caught in a block like that - I've had a previous experience where if I hadn't been logged in on another device I wouldn't have been able to edit anywhere or email anyone to ask for help. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Global blocks do not affect Meta, but most stewards cause a local block mirroring the global block here because, more and more frequently, globally blocked IPs do come here to "fire their last round" at Meta after being globally blocked. That's why DuncanHill was not able to edit (ref) given that the IP range was locally hardblocked (the original global block was a hardblock as well, but when the global block was amended to be 'anon. only' that does not change the local Meta block; you need to do so manually). Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• DuncanHill from a technical perspective, neither the en.wiki block or the global block should have impacted you, as it was anon only. It would have prevented password resets, however. That being said, local IPBE covers global blocks, so if you're having an issue on en.wiki, you can either email a local en.wiki CheckUser directly or email the en.wiki checkuser team following the information at w:en:WP:CheckUser. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I misread this, based on the block notice you posted. It was locally hardblocked on meta. Anyway, useful information if you catch yourself in a global hardblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I'm more confused than I was before you posted. I wasn't having a problem on en-wiki, the problem was with Meta and the impossibility of getting help here. I had to go to en-wiki because I couldn't get help here. Why would I email en-wiki checkusers for a problem on Meta? And why does the notice people get when caught in this situation not give them useful instructions? DuncanHill (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @DuncanHill: you posted the wrong block message above, so I thought you were talking about ths global block. Local IPBE can exempt people from global blocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
        • @TonyBallioni: Sorry well how am I to know which is the "right" block notice if the one on the IP page is wrong? Prhaps they could be labelled "This is the wrong block notice, do not quote it". The message I got when I tried to edit was "Your account or IP address has been blocked. 188.29.164.0/23, you have been blocked by ‪Green Giant‬ until 21:05, 16 August 2019, because: Long-term abuse: per request." So I copied the block notice from that IP. Why was that wrong? DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
          • I think you misunderstand these blocks. There are two: one on meta, and one globally. You copied the notice of the one globally while requesting review of the one on meta, hence the wrong block message. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
            • @Vermont: How the hell is anyone in my position meant to know that? How the hell is anyone else caught like me meant to get help? Dowes nobody here give a damn that innocent people are being caught in blocks that they have no way of appealing? And then when they do manage to edit they get a load of contradictory, confusing, and confused responses. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Look just forget it. It's clear that Meta is not for the likes of me. I am sorry I ever bothered to do anything here. Sorry for wasting your time, I'm certainly sorry I ever wasted my time on Meta. You don't want people to be able to appeal when caught unjustly in blocks. Just try making that a bit clearer in future will you? DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) The block notices specify between global and local blocks. The one you pasted here earlier specifies that it is global. In the event you were completely unable to contact anyone you could always email stewards@wikimedia.org to contact stewards about it. I've read over this discussion and didn't find anything that's contradictory, although there was some confusion with TonyBallioni over the block message. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever why you are frustrated by this. Insinuations that we don't want to help constructive users caught in rangeblocks is insulting and blatantly false. You successfully sought help and gained the input of multiple stewards and active users here. The hostility is unnecessary. Vermont (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: Why is the information to email Stewards only given out after someone has manged to get unblocked? Why not tell them when it might actually be useful? I got no help from Meta until after I was unblocked, I had to go to en-wiki for help. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: I was told here that there was no reason I couldn't edit my talk page. That was confusing and frustrating, when clearly I couldn't edit it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Where were you told that you should be able to edit your talk page? I don't see anything about it here. Also, from my perspective, it seems the block on meta should not have affected you as it was anon-only, although if it did somehow affect you it would block talk page access. In regard to the email, it's literally stewards@wikimedia.org. It isn't hidden; it's pasted on dozens of pages on metawiki and elsewhere. There is also Special:Contact/Stewards. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

None of which is told to someone caught in one of these blocks. And thanks for confirming that you don't understand what was happening. The block did affect me even if "from your perspective" it shouldn't have. I'm not in the habot of guessing email addresses, and I didn't know that it was Stewards who I should have contacted, as again that was not told to me. Expecting people to know things that they have no way of knowing is the unwelcoming attitude that I am complaining about. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I had misread the block log. It appears the IP was hardblocked locally on meta, thus preventing you from editing on meta. I just tested that MediaWiki:Blockedtext does in fact show up by blocking my test account (and it did), which gives comtact information for the blocking admin and a list of other administrators. However, I'm not sure if the global block notice includes the stewards email; if not, it probably should. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: Thank you. Now do you understand why I have foud this thread so frustrating - when people like you get things wrong and proceed to give me advice based on misapprehensions? DuncanHill (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unrelated but re User:TonyBallioni, enwp IPBE could cover global block? You seems to said twice above. AFAIK local IPBE doesn't cover global block, or are you meaning locally white listing? If we can have local sysop granting IPBE to exempt from global blocks rather than needing a GIPBE it will save a lot of time if someone is caught in a hard global block but only need to edit one project. --Cohaf (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Local IPBE allows individuals who only edit one project edit that project even when a global block is in place. w:en:WP:GIPBE is a bit heavy on the en.wiki policy language, but it explains the relationship well. If someone wants to edit more than one project, they’ll need GIPBE, but a significant number of people only care about one project and don’t need it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni:. Noted with much thanks. Sidenote: So for this user case, a local enwp IPBE is all it needs?--Cohaf (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
      • In this user case it was Meta I couldn't edit, so presumably an en-wiki IPBE wouldn't work. Of course, I'm only a clueless newbeie with only 100,000 edits. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
        • An enwiki IPBE would permit you to edit enwiki, although it's probably better to do it globally. Vermont (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
          • And as I might have mentioned once or twice, enwiki wasn't the problem. DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
            • (Edit conflict.) I'm sorry, I don't see how that applies. I'm saying an enwiki IPBE would permit you to edit theough a global block. Vermont (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
          • I meant to clarify: it'd be better to do it globally if you intended to edit other projects. Vermont (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
            • Thanks Vermont for confirmation. This is something new. I shall keep this discussion for reference somewhere should I need it. --Cohaf (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
        • (Edit conflict.) Yes, as it was a meta local block, it’s a different issue. I was confused by the block notice you posted and was trying to be helpful since I’m normally the person who gets pinged when there are en IPBE concerns. I’m sorry for any confusion.

          Cohaf, per above, it doesn’t matter in this case, but to use zh.wiki as an example, if someone only wants to edit zh.wiki, a local sysop can grant them zh.wiki IPBE and they would be able to edit even if a global hard block was in place. Vermont is wrong, however, that global IPBE is preferred in these cases. If someone only cares about one project, local IPBE is often easier for the users to understand and often stewards will kick to local sysops anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

          • Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated. --Cohaf (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Yep, clarified above. Vermont (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

GB closure

Requests for comment/Global ban for Meister und Margarita is more than a month old. I guess it's time to evaluate and close. Personally I don't see consensus to global ban by a simple Support/Oppose count. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Need closure review on Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki

I read from a recent Signpost article about concerns of the closure of Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki, like allegations of COI and possible bias. Also, I found another discussion at User talk:Mardetanha#You (diff). Is closure review needed? Should the RFC be reopened or something? George Ho (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what COI Mardetanha could have. He would have gone regardless of how the RfC was closed. If a closure review is needed, then you should first establish that stewards have any authority at all to act in that situation. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think it was a really poorly worded close: it really does read like we think there is consensus but don't want to implement it, so I can see why people may not like it. That being said, as I've said to a few people, I don't think that is what actually happened and I've been in situations where I've written something one way and the community/the losing side takes it in a way that I never intended. I also don't think Mardetanha had any COI and that having a user who speaks the language of the project in question closing is ideal.

The point being, if you assume the consensus needed to deysop an entire project is roughly in the numerical range needed for RfA (75%, which I think is a fair numerical threshold.) I don't think it achieved it. Even if you go by a slightly lower standard of 70%, I don't think we're quite there. This is just eyeballing and not actually counting heads. Also, yes, RfCs are votes, especially at the global level when there really aren't that many policies to go off of.

tl;dr: the closing statement wasn't great, but the outcome was fair, and I say that as someone who thinks everyone should be deysoped there. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)