Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
For stewards
Noticeboards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Modification of AAR policy for mediawiki.org[edit]

Previously, mediawiki.org had an AAR policy of "AAR doesn't apply and nobody gets flags removed due to inactivity." Per what I believe to be consensus to change this policy (no major opposition, request open for quite some time to gather feedback), I've removed the special policy from Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies to opt mediawiki.org into the standard AAR process. If the stewards judge that sufficient consensus wasn't reached for this change, or that me closing it as successful was improper as I am not a neutral party, please feel free to revert this and drop a note on the RfC. Thanks! --Skizzerz (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for letting us know. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping us updated --Alaa :)..! 15:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppets in the Hebrew Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, I have opened a RFC dealing with sock puppets in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Further details are shown here. As it deals with sock puppets who intentionally destroy the Hebrew Wikipedia, I notified here. Dgw (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please lock these fake accounts[edit]

Slasher405 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call them fake accounts as they could, after all, have been created by him / his team. However, the offensive one has been locked and the others are blocked on en.wikipedia. That should be sufficient. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Global sysops on tlwiki[edit]

Hi. tlwiki is currently excluded from global sysops, but there appears to only be one active administrator. Came across a cross-wiki vandal (w:tl:Special:Contributions/180.251.193.174) that created multiple pages, but as a GS I couldn't delete them. Should tlwiki be added to the wikiset? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from checking the log), tlwiki did not specifically choose to opt out. Rather, it was opted out by default because it had multiple active admins. However, in any case, per the GS policy, "inactivity" is defined as not having made a logged action within the past two months. Stewardry indicates that there are more than ten admins, and more than three have made actions within the past two months, so there is no basis in GS policy to opt them in without asking the community. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Persian Wikipedia Advisory Council Election[edit]

Hello Stewards,

This is the fifth year that the Persian Wikipedia community is going to hold the election for its Advisory Council (a body similar to the Arbitration Committee) using SecurePoll just like the English Wikipedia Arb Com elections. The arrangements necessary are listed on phab:T262689. What we need from you is two steward volunteers to serve as scrutineers for the election. We would prefer if scrutineers do not have much involvement with fawiki in order to help preserve the integrity of the election. The current timetable will have voting between 23 October and 5 November. We expect a voter turnout of about 100 to 150 users, so the task would not be too time-consuming. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Please {{ping}} me in your responses. Thanks in advance! Huji (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Huji: I'm happy to volunteer. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Huji: I can volunteer too :) --Sotiale (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec and Sotiale: thank you both. I will keep this thread open in case a third steward wants to volunteer as a backup. Huji (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Huji: I'd be personally happy to have someone familiar with the interface (from past elections perhaps), so we can ask someone if sth is unclear. But if that would be done by some other means, it's fine with me. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: the interface is pretty straightforward, as it relates to your role as a scrutineer. You will have access to the votes + the IP/UA data for each vote. Your task is to ensure that no user has voted twice or voted via a proxy. The first part is relatively easy (SecurePoll itself strikes out votes that are from the same IP and UA as another existing vote) so you just need to double check. The latter part is busier (you need to run the list of all IPs through the proxy check tool). Huji (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hr wiki checkusers refusing to publish CU check results for admin Kubura[edit]

On August 11, a CU request has been made on hr wiki, for admin Kubura and 38 of his sockpuppets. Local CU Vodomar, after waiting full 14 days, finally reluctantly took the case, aledgedly made the check and promised to publish the results soon. He didn't. Instead, he just went missing. He obviously found proofs of Kubura's sockpuppetry and decided to "play dead" until 90 days has passed. Other CU, Ex13, also Kubura's long-time close friend, also conviniently went missing as soon as he was informed about the request on his talk page. Knowing how closely privatelly connected are hr wiki admins and CU's, I can assure you Ex13 is well informed about the CU request, but, knowing how obvious the results are, decided to let the 90 days to pass.

Today, GregorB left a comment on hr wiki RFC, calling for Vodomar to finally publish the CU results.

In case Vodomar and Ex13 keep ignoring the calls to publish the results, can you promise that some of you stewards will step in and make a CU check on hr wiki?

Also, let me remind you that there were numerous calls to finally close the hr wiki RFC and that not only it's still open, but the stewards even ignored the calls to at least explain why they didn't close it yet.

So, can we rely on stewards to make CU check? Or you will keep pretending hr wiki doesn't exist and sockpuppet master/holocaust denier Kubura, together with his protecters hr wiki checkusers, can relax? --Hrwikiuser (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Global ban request for a locked account[edit]

Please see Requests for comment/Global ban for Sidowpknbkhihj and Special:CentralAuth/Sidowpknbkhihj - if an account is already locked should a global ban discussion be closed as moot? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be closed as moot but not sure what others think. If someone wants to second me, just close it :P — regards, Revi 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
"Moot" is not a correct term to describe such situation since global bans are means to be formal sanction, but I will oppose such request (for now) as I do not think it will add anything useful to a global lock. Anyway, a successful global ban is only exceedingly unusual situation.--GZWDer (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)