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 most recent comment is older than 30 days.

2018 Steward elections results[edit]

The 2018 Steward elections have ended at 14:00 UTC.

The Election Committee, after verifying the votes, has announced the final results, Therefore the following 5 candidates were elected:

  1. علاء (talk · contribs)
  2. Green Giant (talk · contribs)
  3. Rxy (talk · contribs)
  4. -revi (talk · contribs)
  5. There'sNoTime (talk · contribs)

The Election Committee wishes to thank all of the candidates for their time and interest and the voters for the time spent reviewing the candidates and taking part in this important global process. Also the ElectCom wishes to thank all the other volunteers who helped in the coordination of the election process.

The results of the 2018 Stewards confirmation will be determined in the upcoming days.

For the Election Committee,

RadiX 18:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Stryn (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
HakanIST (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Mardetanha talk 07:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Wahooo new stewards!! Congrats all! – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you to all the other candidates for standing, the !voters for their insights, and the election committee for organizing the election. Green Giant (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
It's just voters, steward elections are a vote, begone silly enwiki words!!!!Ajraddatz (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Old habits die hard :) Green Giant (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I too would like to thank the election committee for organizing this election, all the other candidates and all those who voted (both for and against) - your comments of support are humbling as always, and the constructive criticism provided will help me become a better contributor. Thank you - TNT 19:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations to all. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all (The election committee, candidates, voters & watchers) , wish we'll do well --Alaa :)..! 20:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome new stewards! — xaosflux Talk 20:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks ladies and gentleman, I'll have to be less lazy (see my userpage) now Emoji u1f604.svg — regards, Revi 20:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations and good luck to the new stewards! Trijnsteltalk 21:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all Wikimedians! --rxy (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute over at Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Croatian projects[edit]

There's a content dispute over at Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Croatian projects. One of the administrators from Croatian Wikipedia keeps changing the list in a way that does not correspond to the actual rights users have. For example, they keep changing the rights of Dalibor Bosits, Denny and Joy from 'sysop' to 'ex-sysop' even though the users in question still have those rights (see here, here and here under ''). Their several requests to have the rights removed were rejected by stewards, so unless another steward chooses to actually comply with their request, I don't see the point of inaccurately changing the list. See the talk page for a more in-depth explanation. -- 17:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This page has been protected pending an outcome. Note this is obviously not a "content" issue in the traditional sense. — xaosflux Talk 22:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Xaosflux, we are having a problem with a parachutist IP that ignores the attitude of the community of editors of Wikipedia in Croatian. Are we going to please the parachutists IP's that do not edit nor maintain the project or the true active users that express their attitude and expose their reputation by writing articles, voting or discussing? Kubura (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Stewards have nothing to reject, they are obliged to according to the explicit will of the community.
For some reason, this IP dislikes the outcome of the discussion and voting and puts himself above the whole community. That IP is not from Croatia, but from Republika Srpska, entity of Radovan Karadžić, the entity that was in war with Croatia (that is completely ethnically cleansed, almost no Croats there), from which the aggression on Croatia took place.
Anyway, no answer, no explanation from the steward Vituzzu. Not towards me, not towards whole - he did not show up on our Village pump. Kubura (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You've yet to explain what a 'parachutist IP' is. Based on your overall tone, I assume it's not a compliment. Anywho, people can contribute anonymously and, as I've said before, if you've got a problem with that, that's entirely on you. Furthermore, I'm by no means 'ignoring the attitude of the community of editors of Wikipedia in Croatian'. Your requests were denied twice here on Meta. I'm merely making sure you're not inaccurately changing certain pages. If another steward chooses to comply with your request, I'm not going to stand in your way in terms of editing that page. If that doesn't happen (and it most likely won't), you ought to stop vandalizing the page with inaccurate information. By the way, you get an A+ for the personal attacks / ramblings, based on geolocating my IP address, that have nothing do to with this discussion at all. Stay classy and make sure you avoid addressing anything substantial as usual. -- 22:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I've just noticed that you're now canvassing people to harass @Xaosflux: and @Vituzzu:, and myself while you continue to play the victim, even though you're objectively the one who keeps putting in inaccurate information on that page. This is just bizarre at this point. -- 22:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, looks like Vituzzu replied saying that they won't be fulfilling this request and that it's unlikely any other steward will either, so... That should put this to a rest, I reckon. -- 01:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrongful global lock of Chyah[edit]

First of all, the rationale stated by Masti is blatantly invalid. Second, this account should be considered an established Wikimedia account and may be alienated only through a global ban motion, by either community or Office. Some sock puppetry in English and Farsi wikipedias is not a sufficient ground to lock the main account without any kind of discussion. One steward may not decide such a case unilaterally. Compare this case to another one, also from 2017:

account Chyah XPanettaa
39 ke fa.Wikiquote, 34 ke fa.Wikipedia, 3 ke ar.Wikipedia,

> 10,000 uploads to Commons, some deleted.

7 ke en.Wikipedia, 503 e nl.Wikipedia,

∼ 290 uploads to Commons, many deleted.

offences Sock puppetry in English and Farsi wikipedias. Indefblocked in en.Wikipedia and Commons for copyvio, and in nl.Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Two IP socks on Commons.
Out-of-process global lock, no notifications to communities affected (such as Commons). Request for global ban.
result Locked. No consensus for the ban, account active.

So, I propose the following remedy:

  1. We inform relevant communities (fa.Wikipedia first and foremost) that Chyah may be either globally banned or not globally banned, and may not be just “locked” like a vandal or a common spammer.
  2. If no global ban request came in one week, then the global lock is to be lifted.
  3. In case of such a request, the lock remains in place pending results of the discussion.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If we look at [1], the rationale is actually valid: they are using multiple accounts to promote their own concept, which is cross-wiki spam. --Rschen7754 18:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
First of all, “spam-only” may be legitimately used to refer to somebody like Fouadadan (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log), not Chyah. Second, why should I look at action=history? We must look at to assess situation existing at the moment of global lock. How many proven accounts of Chyah do we see there? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I’ve never heard of the concept “established wikipedian may be locked only by ban”, where is it documented? AFAIK there’s no such requirement. — regards, Revi 08:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@-revi: it is documented in Global locks:
It is generally applied to vandalism-only accounts, spam-only accounts, long-term abuser sock accounts, compromised accounts, and though in rare cases users who would be eligible for a global block are locked in this way as well, issues such as like cross-wiki abuse.

the Wikimedia community,Global locks.

The “rare cases” clause indicates that such “like cross-wiki abuse” might be something more severe than few (four or five) accounts trying to push an article into Wikipedia. Let Wikipedia defend its integrity with site bans, indeed, I do not advocate pushing non-notable biographies into sites having notability policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the global locks page is not a policy but a documentation of practice. There is no community-approved policy on locking accounts. And this is indeed one of the "rare cases" where the user would be globally blocked if such a function existed. Whenever an account with good edits is locked, it's a balance between recognizing the previous good but also preventing current abuse. If an account is actively engaging in abusive behaviour across multiple wikis, it may be locked. Such is the case here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: “abusive behaviour” of Chyah was a mild sock puppetry in two wikis. It is not about the account itself, it is about the person. The person committing such acts may or may not be banned—depending on the community opinion—but again, for the master Chyah account we see very few abuse, let alone an amount sufficient for global locking without any discussion. For wikipedias other than en. and fa. an abusive use of multiple accounts is not obvious at all (although is plausible). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
But the account was not locked for the multiple account abuse, according to the summary. It was for the spam. --Rschen7754 00:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: and where do you see amount of advertising, CoI or anything close to spam comparable to overall contributions of the account? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment On 8 December 2017, I wrote a record about Chyah socks on (Any CU can take a look at Special:PermaLink/24857 on CU wiki). Also note that Rafic.Mufid account is confirmed as sock for Chyah as wrote in blocked column, also as you see there's a link between Chyah and Sonia Sevilla account (as wrote on Rafic.Mufid centralauth), so? --Alaa :)..! 18:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    … so we see that Persian Wikimedians have a grudge against Chyah. Otherwise is would be unconceivable to use Sonia_Sevilla with her one edit at a user_talk—looking more as a child’s rather than a sock’s—as a pretext to repress Chyah. This incident demonstrates hounding even more clearly than Masti’s global lock. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Sometimes such locks happen although we can consider reasonable conditions for unlock. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    IMHO the only “reasonable condition” may be a public RfC to establish facts, chronology of actions by both feuding parties, and extent of Chyah’s abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)