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.

Add am.wikipedia.org to GS wikiset[edit]

I don't know why am.wp is not on GS wikiset, this wiki only have 2 admins and none of them are active see here, please add am.wp to the GS wikiset. Thank you.--AldNonymousBicara? 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aldnonymous: Their community previously voted to opt out of global sysop: [1]. Note the original community discussion is now at here, instead of the one shown at meta. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 13:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Uh... This is terrible... What can we do now? We can no longer delete, block vandals and spammers, while there are no active local sysop to perform it.--AldNonymousBicara? 13:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The person who made that request, formerly their most active admin, is now globally banned. I believe this warrants reconsideration. Vermont (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Process and criteria for readding wikis to GS needs to be revisited. A minimum criteria should exist to be excluded and a threshold above which wikis need to not fall below should be established. For example can remove from GS restrictions when have had 5 active administrators for a period longer than 12 months; will return to being a GS wiki when they fall below 2 active admins in a 12 month period. (and this just an example of what it may be, not my recommendation of what it should be).  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with billinghurst suggestion but with minor tweak, the said wiki if they have >= 3 sysops, regardless if active or not, should be on GS wikiset.--AldNonymousBicara? 13:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The GS page says global sysops may use their permissions if fewer than ten administrators exist on the wiki or fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months. I think the minimum criteria can be made in which if an opted out wiki comes to meet any of these criterias (i.e falls under GS scope) they can be Opted-in (readded to the GS set). Thanks--BRP ever 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that you have ignored the sentence immediately below these criteria: "Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus." Using your approach would essentially mean to no longer allow opt-outs based on community decision, a rather toxic way to proceed if you ask me. Also, I would be extremely cautious to impose GS access on this wiki again without consultation, just shortly after banning their most active contributor "from the outside". --Vogone (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Then, what should we do? Right now I have no better idea than what I already gave...--AldNonymousBicara? 14:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Initiating a conversation would be a logical first step, inviting users who are or used to be active in the not-too-distant past. Urgent admin actions can be performed by stewards, no need to rush for a GS opt-in here without first having that conversation. --Vogone (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Setting a minimum criteria will mean not allowing opt-outs until they meet the criteria. I think that sentence needs to be changed if we are going to set a minimum criteria here, unless there are other ways to deal with this.--BRP ever 15:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I am lost here. If they no longer meet that GS opt-in criteria they will be opted-out, unless there is a community decision to the contrary (like there was for a few years on Wikidata). At least that is what has been the procedure in the past. --Vogone (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so we should start a local notification to ask for consensus for adding them back to the GS wikiset?--AldnonymousBicara? 15:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd say yes, that's the best way forward at this point. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Notification sent. I'll wait for response.--AldnonymousBicara? 16:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand the problems a small wiki with no truly active admins poses but I have to really agree with Vogone here, particularly just a few months after getting their most consistently active sysop globally banned. The GS role on some wikis is already seen as overstepping and while I'm not sure how to deal with this, I don't think this is the best way. I do however think we need to specify some GS rules a little better and we are probably due for an RFC about activity on small wikis (as in whether there is any consensus to broaden GS scope per what Billinghurst said.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm also going through the list of Wikipedia's to see which small wikis would be effected by the change that Billinghurst suggested as I suspect a handful of the smaller, but active ones that aren't opted in probably will oppose this. Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment Comment WHOA! My comment was about thresholds, and how they could be used; and I put examples (not proposed measures) to explain what I was meaning. As we did with AAR this would need some solid thinking, and a proposal to update policy as we need to mature to reflect where we are in 2019.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my response was more directed toward the original request but I combined it with my curiosity about what could be impacted by your proposal, having received admonishment for acting on some of the sister projects to those listed but within GS scope. Praxidicae (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's a list I made of the projects that would/could be impacted by the proposal suggested above. I did it quickly and I discounted any bots in my total count, so for example if xyzwiki has 4 sysops, 1 botsysop, I left it at 4 sysops in the first column. Second column means edits in the last month, not 30 days (so just April) and indicates the number of total admins who made any edits in that month. Next is year and that's the same, so if 2 sysops out of the four made any actions between 1/1/19 and today, it would indicate 2 and so forth. Praxidicae (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Praxidicae here, we're probably due for an RfC on this topic. We have to be careful to be considerate of a community decision, but we do have broader concerns, as well. Waggie (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The GS policy and its enforcement is a complete mess.

  • We don't even have a complete list of projects that have opted out or opted in, besides the logs on the wikiset and various requests to stewards.
  • The < 10 admins total part has never really been enforced after the 2010 setup of the group, and especially has not after AAR has pushed several projects below the 10 admins limit.
  • I am not aware of any regular maintenance to make sure that when a project falls below 3 active admins (as defined in the GS policy) that it gets added to the group. I know I did some checks when I was a steward and even afterward but I don't know that other checks are taking place. Even with those checks I was very generous and considered any admin who edited at all to be "active" even though the GS policy is much stricter.
  • Maintenance to check if projects become more active than the GS thresholds is even more rare. I've never checked that.
  • What happens when a project opts out, but all the admins leave or go inactive for whatever reason? (There is a similar issue with AAR).
  • It has been GS tradition to defer to local admins in non-emergency situations... unless the project has specifically opted in or is generally relaxed about this kind of thing (but again, how would a new GS know this?) And even then, when I was a new GS I had to be told this and it isn't codified anywhere. Even still, I don't think all GS are following this. --Rschen7754 00:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Rschen7754 You've summed up a lot of what I personally have found confusing about the GS scope (particularly the 10 admin thing, though rarely have I come across a wiki that has 10 admins that have almost none active, exception being wikis that have admin bots, I don't count their activity.) I also view edits as active for the purpose of me performing any administrative function there but again, most cases I've come across where it was opted-in and slightly outside of scope of 3 active admins, at least one had recent edits and log actions, so I guess it varies. I also agree about deferring to local admins and I've certainly run across issues where I performed an action that was well within GS scope (2 admins, excluding a bot) and almost no recent log actions or edits from either but I got an earful (screen full?) after performing a block on a blatant vandal. As far as checks go, I was thinking about working on a query to look at activity for opted-out projects where 10 or fewer admins have been active in the last year and then we can look from there. Yesterday when I created the list I posted above, I came across several that were opted out but had 4-8 admins who hadn't had an action or and edit since 2014-16 (some cases, there were no actions for a handful since 2009!!!) Basically tl;dr for me as a GS, I try not to take action in non-emergency situations where it can even be remotely construed as an active community (with administration, dinwiki is a good example of a handful of active editors but no sysops.) I also think Billinghurst's proposal has merit for activity but I don't know a good way to go about enacting it in such a way that wouldn't feel like forcing that community into opt-in. Praxidicae (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Some things that have changed since placement of operational practices: spambots, and their systemic abuse; global SUL, and account amalgamations, and the ease of xwiki vandalism; global abusefilters, and who can implement them; split of admin and IA practices; global meta user page; the bots that operate; the hosting of bots at wmflabs; merging and closing of wikis; CentralAuth. So asking today's GS to act in the same way as in 2009 would be denying the evolution of tools, and practices.

Let us get an RFC in place to identify what has changed that effects how global sysops operate and look to what practices should exist into the future, and how that operates. Part of the conversation should focus on what constitutes a GS-wiki, and how they pop in and out of scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment global sysops page is essentially a page that reflects the wikis in 2009 and how they operated way back then, and the role is undertaken by a set of individuals without coordinated interaction. The list of 98 wikis that are in and out of the GS system are listed at Special:WikiSets/7.

I don't think that the principle of the GS role has changed, though I think that the operating environment of the wikis has modified, It is a time for a good review of what the role is to achieve, what the wikis require from the role, and some suitable guidance for criteria for wikis opting out, and the basis for when they fall back in.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Who should we go to for all these deletion requests? Vermont (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Stewards can still do deletions (or any action like this on a non-GS wiki with no active admins). --Rschen7754 05:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I would also add that you don't need to go to anyone. This is a wiki that has made a decision, and if they retain rubbish that is their problem, not yours or ours. We offer a service, not a compulsion. Like some discussions about notability, deletion discussions, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

30 days and no objections for amwiki. Maybe it can be readded to the GS set? @Aldnonymous: --Rschen7754 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Rather than no objections, the community seems... dormant... or non existent, though I do agree, with this it's should be fine to be added to GS wikiset.--AldnonymousBicara? 04:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, nobody has been informed about that section, no wonder nobody replies. That might even happen on a non-dormant small wiki. I disagree with the idea of overridig a community consensus with a "silent consensus" initiated by an external, though. It is even doubtful whether this post can be interpreted as such a "silent consensus" at all, since it was formulated as a mere recommendation to the community. Ignoring a recommendation to initiate a decision making process does not indicate a willingness to let others make the decision for you. --Vogone (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
But I don't know who is actually active and who is not... Urgh, I give up, probably this is what Billinghurst said... I'm offering service, not compulsion.--AldnonymousBicara? 15:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Closed Wikinews sites and AAR[edit]

If a Wikinews has soft-closed (in that it no longer publishes articles and has archived the Main Page, but the wiki remains editable in case someone wants to restart it) - how does that affect AAR?

Case in point: Swedish Wikinews has n:sv:Wikinews:Administratörer#Inaktivitetspolicy, but I asked the active bureaucrat if it was still valid and got an unclear response: n:sv:Användardiskussion:Ainali#Inactive_admins/bureaucrats. --Rschen7754 05:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also see past discussion at Stewards'_noticeboard/Archives/2015-02#RE:Admin_activity_Review@svnews. --Rschen7754 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
IMO it should be a clean start with a new community requiring new consensus to opt-out, otherwise AAR and other global policies should apply. — regards, Revi 05:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually I am leaning to the position that if nobody is maintaining the site it should be closed, but I don't think LangCom will support my view. — regards, Revi 21:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Bump. --Rschen7754 06:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Why not just clear (i.e. remove all of) them? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure that policy allows us to. --Rschen7754 00:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Stewards and copyvio[edit]

If sysops refuse to deal with blatant copyright-violations over a wiki, can stewards step in? See az:İstifadəçi_müzakirəsi:Araz_Yaquboglu#What, Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki and Requests for comment/Copyright violations and no reason block by sysop on Azwiki. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Vituzzu:. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Moved from Special:Permalink/19047953. — regards, Revi 17:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Do stewards even read this noticeboard anymore? It seems that there are only 10% that do. --Rschen7754 18:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

*tumbleweed* --Base (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Stewards: I've asked some questions to clarify some issues at Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki. Given the answers, I may make a proposal over the weekend.

I've been a steward before. I know the tendency is to ignore complex things like this, like many did with hrwiki. Please do not ignore this one. This is part of the role, too. I know you're not a global ArbCom, but in clear cases of abuse I believe that since WMF / WMF Board has clearly stated that they won't interfere in this sort of matter, that stewards are left having to act once there is a clear global consensus. --Rschen7754 18:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking over the issue. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki#Proposal[edit]

Hello. I have proposed removing all administrators, bureaucrats, and interface admins from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia due to concerns about copyright violations, abuse of the block tool, and use of admin tools to push POV editing. Evaluation of the situation on this Wikipedia by outside Wikimedia editors would be appreciated. Rschen7754 01:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Risto hot sir's addition of images with English captions on dozens of non-English wikis[edit]

Hello! Back in early March, I noticed in my SWViewer queue that Risto had begun adding images with English captions en masse to non-English projects where he does not know the language. I left a note on his talk page, and undid a large portion of the image additions. This wasn't taken well, and he undid the majority of my undos. He argued with local editors on a few projects, resulting in his indefinite block on nl-wikipedia and later nl-wikiquote, which is in addition to his August 2018 indefinite block on fi-wikiquote for harassment. Today around noon I noticed that he had done the same thing again, adding images to dozens of wikis, many of which had English captions. On some wikis he was reverted, although most, being small GS-wikis with few or no admins and a small community, remain. I left a note earlier today about this, indicating I intended to remove the images that pose no value and the English captions; I no longer intend to do so, and would rather seek guidance here. As Risto has not agreed to stop these additions, which I see to be disruptive, I am not sure what can be done to rectify this. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

False information. I've done 78 000 edits, and over 90% are accepted. Nl-Wikipedia and Wq blocked me after a couple of edits, which may be the world record. At Finnish Wq have I made difficult questions to admins who don't bother to answer even to other editors' questions. Almost nothing happens there anymore (like at nl-Wq), all Finnish material have I written to et-Wq, where I've had no problems. For example the Soome vanasõnad seems to be the largest proverb site in the wiki-world. Not anymore have I put English text to foreign language wikis, only pictures. The Scandinavian editors, for example, are able to translate English. If someone does not want in other countries is for language political reasons. I wish Vermont would leave me alone. Local admins should decide what they want to keep, we don't need international police admins. Thank you.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Risto hot sir I've removed some of your image on id.wp and ms.wp you are cluttering our articles with image while the content is still small. Wikipedia emphasis on the writings not the gallery.--AldnonymousBicara? 03:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Question Question: @Risto hot sir:

  • Why do you believe that your adding of the same images to articles is reasonable behaviour?
  • Why do you believe that people undoing your additions is unreasonable behaviour?
  • Why do you think that it can only be a local administrator who should be removing your additions? The role of administrator is not about being the arbiter of a good or a bad edit, it is a technical role rather than a qualitative role.
  • The role of global sysop has been developed by the community to manage small wikis with less or no administrators, so please tell me why it is not pertinent for such a role to be used in this circumstance. Please show me in this circumstance that the global sysop role has even be utilised, as in that you have been blocked, articles deleted, or articles protected.
  • Please would you also tell me how the number of edits is pertinent to an action at a wiki; and if someone has more edits, that makes their actions more acceptable or less acceptable.

Comment Comment I look at your lead additions of an image of a bleeding finger to an article about blood at many wikis, and I feel that it is not appropriate addition. Articles about blood are about the substance that flows through the body, and not about the result of an injury that results in bleeding. They are conceptually different, and I would remove that image addition in a general article. If I did that at one wiki where I was an editor, and saw that you were doing it cross-wiki, I would have no issue commenting to you about that, and if you continued, I too would consider a bulk level of reverts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I think that adding images to articles generally makes them more readable, so I don't oppose adding images to smaller wiki articles. The English descriptions are somewhat problematic, but it seems that the user has now removed them so I'm not very concerned about that either. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm tired of "conversating" with Vermont, so I won't edit the smaller wikis (if I don't understand the language) anymore - except explaining why on my talk pages.--Risto hot sir (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ajraddatz, he has not removed any of them, including ones with English captions. His most recent image additions were 15 minutes before the creation of this discussion, and it added this image to a dozen or so wikis. Vermont (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment Comment: IMHO the behavior is borderline: going head-on to insert images is a bit problematic, but not enough for a G-lock. Honestly, locally a situation like this would be easier to manage. But, is necessary this spasmodic insert of images, plus (to be justified also) with the caption in English?--Wim b 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. During the years I have seen many users adding images with wrong language captions to other wikis, it's of course not good, but not worth a lock. If we had a global block option it could be used as the very last solution. But now, the user should be instructed to be more careful in the future what to add and where. Stryn (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment Comment: Stryn: Yes, for registered user the global lock is all white or all black, but in cases like this a "canonical block" would have been ideal. Option like "expiry" or "block in all projects except meta" are still necessary in many cases. --Wim b 21:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand why a picture of water or fire (without text) can't be placed to wikis where there aren't any pictures. The image at de-Wp was reverted (wrong language) - meanwhile an editor at de-Wikiquote translated the text to German, and I added this image to de-Wikipedia. It was reverted again, but with a long explanation, and I'm satisfied with that. It's unfair to select only a few examples out of 200 wikis - and many readers have thanked me, especially Serbs and Croats. The readers thanked because I noticed their wiki and made the first edits in months or so. And ALL the images are from English Wikiquote or Wikipedia. Someone must activate an wiki and find local companions. That has happened at fi-Wq, the amount of articles increased from 800 to 3300, et-wq (400 > 900), sv-wq (500 > 1300), la-Wq (400 > 750) and so on. Now it seems that Vermont doesn't want the small wikis to develop at all. Today I've added some images of Joan of Arc to wikis which have no pictures. Is it a sin?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I request you rescind your personal attack against me. Further, that you rescind your claim that "...many readers have thanked me, especially Serbs and Croats. The readers thanked because I noticed their wiki and made the first edits in months or so." Erm, no. Your thanks logs are empty on both the Serbian and Croation Wikipedia, the user page welcomes are because you edited there, and you are far from the first edit in months. I get those talk page messages too; everyone does. In fact, you added English content to the Croation Wikiquote, Serbian Wikiquote, and Serbian Wikipedia. It seems ever more obvious you do not see why adding English content to non-English wikis is a problem. And, for the duration of this discussion, I request that you cease addition of images on projects where you do not speak the language. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You've dragged him to a central noticeboard, one of perhaps the most degrading things that you can do to another editor. I think we can give him a little leeway in hostile/defensive responses here. That said, Risto, please don't make assumptions about other's motivations, even in a stressful situation like this. We're all here for the same purpose: to support and develop Wikimedia projects. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It was Vermont who dragged me to this site. The whole mess started when he wrote that I update my USER'S SITE at Simple English wp too often and let me know that my edits are of less quality than his. - I meant Serbian and Croatian WIKIQUOTES and messages. And I haven't added English content to non-English sites anymore, how many times must I tell this? - Of Images: someone's opinion was that a bleeding finger should not be placed in the article Blood but Injury. Still they exist at en-Wikis on the site Blood. These are always POVs. For example the caricature of King George III and a beggar might hurt that editor's feelings who has too much money. I've got a blacklist of unfriendly editors - and don't visit their wikis. - Was that picture of Joan of Arc a sin, you haven't answered, it's a key question--Risto hot sir (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if you percieved my question on your Simple English Wikipedia talk page as hostile or that I intended to "let me know that my edits are of less quality than his". That is not so; I simply had a question of why you continually update your edit counts on so many projects. It may be easier to just maintain a metawiki (global) userpage if you want to advertise an updated number. This started in March when I first noticed your additions, not last week when I left that message. These are unrelated. In regard to the Serbian and Croation Wikiquotes, you are correct, I had forgotten to check the thanks logs on the Wikiquotes. On both, you've been thanked repeatedly by the same two users; one of which has 0 edits on the Serbian Wikiquote where the other is an administrator, and they both have less than 15 edits on the Croation Wikiquote. Personally, I don't see much of an issue with the addition of non-captioned images to no-image articles on small wikis. Thank you for agreeing not to add English content again. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It's OK, let's smoke the peace pipe! Many admins at en-Wq even have lists what articles they've created or significantly expanded. But in my opinion if the article is about a person (or let's say Book burning), an image is needed, like at en-Wikis and almost everywhere. Thanks.--Risto hot sir (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Review my block in AzWiki[edit]

Hello. Can you review my block on Azerbaijani Wikipedia? Here are details on RFC. I think that this RFC will take more time to solve, so maybe deal with my block first? Long story short I was blocked for a comment I made on Facebook, which is not part of the Wikimedia Project. Thank you from advance. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ Zaÿïþzaþ€(hail sithis!) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

pl.wikiquote - AAR[edit]

pl.wikiquote seems to use the vote of confidence process, similar to en.wikiquote. Maybe this should be added back to the AAR process too, under the same logic? q:pl:Wikicytaty:Odbieranie uprawnień says nothing about inactivity. @MarcoAurelio and Openbk: --Rschen7754 00:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)