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.
  • This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
Meta-Wiki Steward.svg
For stewards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

New account[edit]

Hello, I would like to create new account with productive edits. So, I need your permission before taking my decision. --☆★Raaza Upreti (✉✉) 04:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

please respond my message. "Thanks" --☆★Raaza Upreti (✉✉) 06:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You are no longer welcome on Meta on any account, after your recent stint of hacking into accounts, making vandalism-only accounts, and trying to blame your actions on others. Quite frankly I am surprised I even need to say this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Should this be formalised by a community block? By the sounds of the conversation, without seeing the evidence, that should progress to that point. It also takes the emphasis of stewards and back to the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, perhaps a global ban? MechQuester (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

that was my inference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
We will still (at some point) release a statement on the case once everything is resolved. I don't think a community ban here would add anything that hasn't already been done, or is being done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Rusyn Wikipedia[edit]


Yesterday I noticed an article uk:Вікіпереворот у Русинській Вікіпедії (Wikirevolution in Rusyn Wikipedia), written by users Словянин and Закарпатець. It contains the following claims:

  • Four users (Словянин, Закарпатець, Мукачево and Русинська оброда) formed a group to grab admin rights in Rusyn Wikipedia
  • The election was rigged and was well-planned in advance
  • The election was organised in just two days
  • They actively used sockpuppets during the election
  • "Dumb stewards" did not notice this and granted rights.

Now as Rusyn Wikipedia sysop Словянин (talk contribs count logs page moves block log CA email) publicly claimed that his election in Rusyn Wikipedia was rigged, I think stewards should check these claims — NickK (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The sysop rights were granted for 3 months, set to expire on April 4. Can you please provide diffs to support your affirmations? Savhñ 11:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Savh: I don't understand your question. These affirmations are not mine, two users involved (Словянин (talk contribs count logs page moves block log CA email) and Закарпатець (talk contribs count logs page moves block log CA email)) publicly affirmed it by creating an article uk:Вікіпереворот у Русинській Вікіпедії in Ukrainian Wikipedia (diffs are in the edit history of this article). If users state they used sockpuppets and manipulated the election and that "dumb stewards" did not notice it and granted rights, I think it should be checked. In my opinion this can violate multiple rules: manipulating the election (as far as I understand they changed local rules), using sockpuppets and organising an election in just two days (while usually 7 days are required) — NickK (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this clarification. I will look into it. Savhñ 12:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
CheckUser evidence confirms the vote had been rigged. I have proceeded to removing the rights and will evaluate further actions. Savhñ 12:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I recently requested to block a user for vandalism, which one of you did. The edits of the user were partially restored by an admin (to be honest I do not remember what is the user name and who is the admin), but if there is sockpuppetry going on it might be worthwhile to check whether any of the admins are identical to this globally blocked user.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Found it, the user was User:Гншшп.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The socketmaster is user:KHMELNYTSKYIA. Ruslik (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom homewiki COI?[edit]

As it seems several already have an issue with fulfilling a request previously decided by pre-established groups on wikis, I thought of asking here, to get the bigger picture (or should an RfC be more appropriate?) - I've always assumed COI would exist if the person used the tools directly, rather than simply ticking a box on a decision made elsewhere and collectively... it would be odd then if it was declined due to some personal reason, but ArbCom might as well be able to assign them themselves if they already do so sociologically on the wiki, in which case it's kind of automated, no? -- Mentifisto 00:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The concept of a COI has been quite bastardized over the years, to the point of it not applying where there are conflicts of interest and applying where there is none. In the case of ArbCom mandating that a user receive CU/OS bits, there is no possible way that could be a conflict of interest - you're simply performing the technical action of implementing an existing decision. I think what that part of the steward policy refers to is, for example, deciding who gets to be an admin on a small wiki that you are an active community member in. If an Rf(temp)A came in from that wiki, with one user supporting and you opposing, then it wouldn't be appropriate for you to close that request. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to just follow two simple rules to avoid any concerns with conflicts of interest. A) Avoid all actions on your homewiki. B) Avoid closing discussions you participated in. Neither of course removes all conflicts of interest, especially in the latter case where everyone arguably has an opinion when closing something, but it's the path of least resistance and there are enough stewards around that there shouldn't be a need to even worry about this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, you're not the only steward who has fulfilled similar requests. The problem I have had with stewards fulfilling ArbCom-related requests is when there is ambiguity. For example, [1] where the request came from a member of ArbCom, but not necessarily on behalf of ArbCom. --Rschen7754 01:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have already made my point of view clear on your confirmation page, but as far as I'm concerned, a request from the arbcom is equally clear as the result from a RfX, and should therefore not be handled by someone whose homewiki it concerns. You repeat, here again, that you have "assumed COI would exist if the person used the tools directly, rather than simply ticking a box on a decision made elsewhere and collectively", but that would mean any right change concerning your homewiki (except clearly controversial cases) would not be a COI, which is totally different from the current wording of the steward policy ("changing rights on home wikis (wikis where they are active community members), except for clearcut cases (such as self-requested removal or emergencies).") - "Clear-cut" cases are not the same as "not clearly controversial". Savhñ 02:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • So you think they're not sufficiently controversial but not clear-cut uncontroversial? What is the gist between self-requested removals and ArbCom decisions, since both contain outcomes formulated externally? -- Mentifisto 03:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
      • That's pretty obvious: Removal removes access (per the users request), while addition provides new access. Savhñ 11:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it should not be done, but it definitely should not be done without discussing it first - which is my main concern on your confirmation. I personally believe any right change on the home wiki can be potentially controversial and should therefore be avoided; I personally have only once granted the accountcreator right on my homewiki, and will neither add or remove any more potentially controversial right. I'm not really sure what you mean with "it would be odd then if it was declined due to some personal reason", but if I understand it correctly, it wouldn't be odd because someone else whose homewiki is not would handle it. Savhñ 02:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
+1 to Savh's statement. It is about being seen to be living the expected values. Plus it was my experience that when you are approaching the line and you take actions then a clear expression that "yes, you know that you are approaching the line" and an explanation of why, eg. allocating yourself CU on a home wiki for clear emergency reasons, draw attention to it, not hide your action.

If you don't need to push a boundary, then don't. Expect to be judged when you do, there are plenty who will challenge. Every time that a steward pushes that boundary, some will take it as a reason for them to push a boundary ... just because!  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Savh and Billinghurst. --MF-W 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing of global abuse filters — current status?[edit]

It is a number of years since we have implemented global abuse filters, and the initial position was that it was going to be stewards only (safety, uncertainty, community expectations, etc.) at least through the implementation. Can stewards tell the community their current view on global filters and how they see that they believe that they should operate into the future? Do stewards see that they have the sole ownership on their editing; that there is a case for other trusted users to be able to have the right; whether any change in rights assignation would need to be broadly proposed to the community; or what they see as the scope?

I ask as I have been requesting numbers of modifications to global filters over the past year, and I have to ask one or two people to edit filters that I created, built, tested and implemented. As a former steward, I believe that I have the trust and ability to edit within the expected scope; and it aligns with current ability and rights of a meta admin to edit other global impacting filtering functions. I am not wanting to set a policy for one, though I see that as there is neither privacy requirements, nor identifying components in the abuse filters that there is scope to explore the next iteration for the use of the permission "Create or modify global abuse filters (abusefilter-modify-global)".

My comments will guide my next steps. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Allowing others -not stewards- to modify global filters is something I can see the risks and the benefits. I could trust you to manage global filters as you did managed them finely in your steward term; but I don't think we should be opening the gate. GAF is a very powerful tool, and I'd prefer that permissions stayed as they are; as it happens to some other tools such as CentralAuth or global block, which in comparaison can do less damage (I mean: a bad filter can cause thousands of edits or users being blocked, flagged, etc...) than a badly configured filter or a malicious one. —MarcoAurelio 12:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    Which is why we always go through a testing process for filters whether they are global or not. Principles are unchanged, here are the other nn wikis where I have filters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    Certainly. That said, maybe we could try. There are really good people with AF management and we could use their experience in this field. But we don't need only principles and I'd like to see also a well defined policy for this. —MarcoAurelio 12:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • IMHO when there is a trusted user supported by community with enough experience in global matters and with a good experience in AF, after a steward review, is welcome to modify GAF. --Melos (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)