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.
  • This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
Stewards
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
Requests
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.

AAR, hr.wiki[edit]

Regarding Your notice, these admins have been stripped of admin status because of inactivity: Denny (both admin and bureaucrat status), Joy, Dalibor Bosits, Saxum. The status was stripped / these users were desysopped by the community consensus. See the discussion and voting page on the cases of Denny, Joy, Dalibor Bosits and Saxum. The account SpeedyBotA is the bot account, ran by active admin. Kubura (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

See [1] for some badly needed context. --Rschen7754 18:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Question Question: @Kubura: Can you please identify, for the community, how the stewards actions that have been undertaken are contrary to the AAR policy. [I note that there is no recorded administrative process recorded for admin review for hrWP appended to that policy]. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, guys, You misunderstood me. In the notice [2] there is a line "These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights." These community discussions were held and so I provided You that information, that You can have a feedback info. We did our part, what You'll do, I don't know, I'm going to deal with other things. Kubura (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kubura: Did any of the people listed start a community discussion to retain their rights? The policy was determined that users need to positively identify that they wished to retain their rights. If they did not, then any community discussion is irrelevant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Inactivity removals on projects with policies[edit]

There are several current requests on SRP by User:Esteban16 for de.wikiversity, a project that they do not regularly edit. Without focusing too much on this specific case, will stewards perform requests like these?

There are quite a few projects that are not good at enforcing their own policies and it might be good to follow up on situations like this, especially with the recent security/hacking issues. --Rschen7754 19:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't, personally. Leaderboard (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I just want to add that regardless if I am an editor on a wiki or not, if I find cases likes this I would consider to request stewards intervention. Last month I requested the removal of sysop flag for many inactive users on frwikibooks after talking about that with an editor from that wiki. Some people may consider this controversial or think that I should mind my own business, as I don't edit on those wikis, but I only do that with the purpose of fulfilling policies and avoiding incidents such as exposure to sensitive tools from a hacker. But I understand that it is better if this type of requests were made by a trusted user from certain wiki instead of an unknown one, however the fact that those are small wikis makes it harder to perform it. Esteban16 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreeing with Rschen7754 that with the changes in security management since we rolled out AAR back in 2013, maybe it is time for the broader community, via stewards, to remind/prod/audit those communities with identified separate processes to ensure that their existing processes are operational. If not operational, then they move them back to the default AAR. Beyond what is in place at WD to note Project:Administrators where else may checks take place? I don't see that it is unreasonable 6 years down the track to ask the communities to confirm such, or for it to be confirmed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Generally it is a responsibility of bureaucrats to enforce local inactivity policies. If there are no local bureaucrats then stewards should perform their duties. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

New and different spambot activity leaking through[edit]

Hi stewards and global admins watching. Noting that we are seeing a different spambot type activity, and it is focusing on main nss. deleted example. It is full of links, so we may be able to look at new editors trying more than nn links added, otherwise contains a right smattering of links, domains and text. COIBot is running some diagnostics now that it is back online, and I am collecting url samples to feed into it later. I have not had the time to do a decent analysis and still in data collection mode.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, at deWP, we've got de:Special:AbuseFilter/273 do deal with this. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Schniggendiller: care to import it locally?  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:: I imported the filter to Meta now (sorry for the delay). The first time I imported a filter. What exactly do you mean with locally? Since I'm not a Meta admin, I shouldn't create a local rule, only global ones, right?
I enabled the filter, but set logging only. We had approx. 9 % false positive at deWP, but let's see how it works now …
Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
That filter looks no different from filter 207(global) which I added a while ago. Leaderboard (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: that was the point - to see if enwiki is getting this type of traffic or not. — xaosflux Talk 04:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I was referring to Schniggendiller's addition of that new filter. Leaderboard (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment In some exploration I am seeing that there are numbers of domains that are open and unregulated wikis, uncertain whether they are set up solely to spam whereafter used by the spambots as targets, or otherwise abandoned wikis. I am finding some value in blacklisting the problematic domains.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


Inactive admins on chapter wikis[edit]

This doesn't fall within the scope of AAR, and I understand that chapter wikis can determine how they want to run themselves - but I cannot think of any good reason that someone who has not edited that wiki since 2005 should retain the admin rights: [3] I picked on nlwikimedia, but there are other chapter wikis that have admins who haven't edited since earlier this decade. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 18:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nor I, though they are their own entities,and set their policies. Probably belongs on their wikis as an open question. I would think that they can opt-in to the globally AAR and just need to ask.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
An admin on nl.wikimedia responded: [4]
The way that AAR is currently written, it explicitly excludes chapter wikis. But there is nothing to stop stewards, or any user, from asking the question, if we don't want to go through the effort of adjusting the policy. --Rschen7754 18:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
When we put forward the proposal, we though that it was inappropriate to impose the community standard on those independent bodies. As I said above, I would think that chapters could opt-in, and if we think that the policy is prohibiting such, then we can propose that change to AAR to allow them to opt-in. That sort of change should be non-controversial as it is allowing, not imposing. The issue would be if they want half-pregnant, ie. run your checks, but don't remove, etc. and how we word the changes without putting an unreasonable administrative burden on those managing AAR.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Or we just run the same tool through the chapters as a courtesy service on an annual basis, and just notify them of the results, and let sort out their own business.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Set the 2010s election archives to be less editable[edit]

With the steward elections for the 2010 decades now complete, I have set the archiving protection abusefilter to now to apply to the election pages in the subpages of the Stewards page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Noting that this will also include Talk pages, if it is preferred we can exclude the respective talk pages from the restriction, or put in a differing restriction.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

AAR - en.wikiquote[edit]

It doesn't look to me that en.wikiquote should be exempted with the current wording of Admin_activity_review#Policy. The English Wikiquote has neither an ArbCom, nor an active review process (there's no inactivity policy as far as I could see) nor it is an special wiki. As for the votes of confidence page, looks unrelated to inactivity given that such page is to request the removal of rights for trust issues. I think I'll add en.wikiquote back to the set of included wikis. Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was it excluded? Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It is listed on Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies since the page was created. I don't think the VoC process is intended for what AAR is aimed for. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It has been added by a local administrator. --Vogone (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Also worth nothing that it was added again to the top section (for exclusion) in the next edit. I would say that it should be checked for inactivity, as it is not specifically excluded.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The last time votes of no confidence for the sole purpose of inactivity was brought up it was rejected the the local community. Ningauble is technically correct in their assessment that there is no such local policy. How that interacts with global policy is above my pay grade. GMGtalk 23:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I would agree too. However, en.wikiquote is probably not the only wiki that falls into this category. --Rschen7754 00:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
To add, there's really no harm in adding it. If they have an inactivity policy or want to come up with one, they can always do so in the month after the notifications. --Rschen7754 00:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
👍  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added it back to the set of wikis where AAR is enabled, and will notify them shortly. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Notifications sent, etc. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)