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.
Wikimedia steward Icon.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.

Closing azwiki RfC[edit]

The azwiki RfC is now eligible for closure. An uninvolved steward should close the discussion. --QEDK (talkenwiki) 09:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Somebody do this please, it's one of the easiest closures. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is on the stewards-l table. — regards, Revi 15:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@-revi:, I am so sorry, but what is stewards-l table mean? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Stewards are internally discussing it. — regards, Revi 10:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It evades my mind, as to what precisely needs to be discussed but it's above my pay-scale and I will let you bother with that, as long as the job gets eventually done within a week or so. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not going to decide when this will be done. That is indeed outside your pay-scale including when this will be done. — regards, Revi 16:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Revi, are you aware that above my payscale is an idiom often used to refer to something beyond one's skills or ability without any real-life-reference to one's pay? Over en, we often say something like:- Hey, me thinks that the user was well-meaning and after all, did not misuse his socks. But it involves CU data, which's above my pay-scale. So, can't say much and you need to contact a CU ....
Your response is quite hostile, to be mild. And, my point of including a time-span was the fact that RFCs over Meta tend to be open for an eternity or so:-) Apologies, if anything above, offended you. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Please remember this is not English Wikipedia and one's knowledge about English idioms might differ. That being said, IMO, you still have no right to declare a deadline when this should be done. Statement like "as long as the job gets eventually done within a week or so" is declaring a deadline, which is not something you are entitled to.
About the discussion - I don't think I can publish what is being discussed, but those who are interested in it is discussing it and will probably come up with edits on Meta. — regards, Revi 18:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
You need to assume good faith, something which is not limited to en-wiki. I am not a native speaker yet it's too easy to lose track of whether I am using any metaphor/idiom, because they flow into the writing, naturally. Despite that, I, as someone who is proficient in multiple languages, understand that lingustic and cultural relativism is very real and have thus, apologised for any mis-impressions that my statement caused.
I have never asked you to publish privileged discussions to me; that would be weird and insane.
As to your second issue, about deadline, it's some similar stuff. There was no declaration of any hard deadline (are you taking it in some corporate sense? weird) but rather an optimum timeframe, (atleast from my POV). My response can be literally paraphrased as :- I don't understand, what are you talking about but then, that's above my designated wiki-roles/abilities. At any case, all's good and I expect to see it closed within a week or so.
Hope this satisfies you. Feel free to have the last word. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I'm wondering is, is WMF going to be involved, or is it all going to be coming from stewards? --Rschen7754 18:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
T&S are aware but I doubt they'll do something in the midst of en:WP:FRAM. --QEDK (talkenwiki) 06:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@HaithamS (WMF): mailed me after Rfc, suggest us discuss every sysyops situtation. I think they will involved. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You will notice the template on his user page that he is no longer working for / provide services to WMF. — regards, Revi 09:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: I am so sorry, but I didn't notice the template. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

CentralNotice dispute[edit]

Hi stewards, I've disabled CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Pride 2019 as an emergency measure, since this CN seems to be opposed by the community. Since CentralNotice/Request says "the stewards team may be called upon to assess consensus", I think you should be informed about this. Feel free to revert my actions if you think it's warranted. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your action and thanks for informing us. Stryn (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Enigmaman (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia the use of administrator privileges to perform a site-wide action, proposed by that same administrator, in defiance of overwhelming community opposition and every relevant policy, and to then ignore all requests to self-revert over the period of multiple days, would result in the immediate removal of said privileges from that user. It appears that on Meta-Wiki, however, this kind of behaviour is simply par for the course, even though the Central Notices affect all projects and are seen by millions of readers. 07:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pharos was asked point-blank to remove the banner and did not. Not good. --Rschen7754 08:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the page should say a local admin instead of stewards. Stewards don't have any thing to do with CentralNotices, but oh well. Let's see what Pharos has to say about their action. Matiia (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The banner was not opposed by the community, it was opposed by exactly one editor who by their own account has opposed virtually every banner for the last 1.5 years, and whose objection was not actionable. That same editor then decided to post about this to the biggest controversy page on English Wikipedia in years, and we saw a bunch of effectively canvassed votes, after it was already live, that were entirely unrepresentative. I don't see anything in that sequence that should call for a self-revert from me, and I think this is an important initiative with broad support from the community that should be restored.--Pharos (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    A banner requires consensus in favor of it. It requires that the community be notified of the proposal at least seven days in advance. A banner put up without consensus or without notification should be reverted. The guidelines are not optional suggestions. --Yair rand (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Aren't guidelines by nature not policy? But also was there consensus for this or any of the others? Praxidicae (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Requiring consensus for non-fundraising banners was backed by very strong consensus in an RFC. Certain banners have unfortunately not followed procedure, notably this mess a few weeks ago. --Yair rand (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Procedural note: Re-enabled by Seddon (WMF). — regards, Revi 12:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A WMF-banned user is spamming me on simplewiki, Commons and the English version of Wikinews[edit]

I don’t know what I had done to him. He keeps on spamming me on my talk pages there. Nigos (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

so the Commons Admins' Noticeboard discussion is here:
Someone from IP address wanted to reset my password. It wasn’t me. What do I do??? Nigos (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That IP address is already globally blocked (a few hours ago). Stryn (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Nigos (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My administrative rights on[edit]

I received a message from @Rschen7754: that "I meet the criteria for inactivity". He informed me that in order to preserve the rights, I should inform the community about this message.
Then, on this noticeboard, I am going to publish a discussion link in which the community will express the will to keep the rights.
Link to the received message:
I made all the points from the message I received:
- a link to the discussion in which I informed the community:ść%C5%B_administrator%C3%B3w
There was a one voice in the discussion "If you became active on the steward's request and upheld the desire to have rights, then you should be excluded from the stewards' attitude regarding inactivity."
No other votes were raised- -MariuszR (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I am an administrator in Polish wikiquote. I confirm what above. Zero (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The relevant policy is AAR. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello MariuszR. Thanks for your message. The notification you received is from Admin activity review. Given that you've returned to activity you'll be exempted this round, so you'll keep your permissions. I've added a note to our check page so they don't get removed in error notheless. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WMF-banned user Rockystatues[edit]

Um, based on the spam that banned user put here, I think you should warn the Polish, English and Serbian Wikipedias and the English Wikiquote admins about what that banned user may do. Nigos (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

All of the people on that google group are the same person. He's been vandalizing those projects for a while, almost 15 years now iirc. There's no real need to do anything as those projects will simply revert and block the account. This has been happening for a long time, and the most we can do is demy recognition and simply revert, block, and ignore. Vermont (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

eyes needed[edit]

Moved to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#eyes needed
MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism by User:Ivan A. Krestinin via Wikidata[edit]

User:Ivan A. Krestinin just mass-removed data in Wikidata.

As documented on d:Property:P2580 the concerned values are used in several Wikipedias.

In deWP more than 700 pages lost their external links to pages on as can be seen at de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Wikidata P2580 Wartung - 2019-07-21 there was just one item in that category.

Also SPARQL-Queries that use P2580 will not work anymore as they did before.

What can be done? This is *not* just a Wikidata-issue, for Wikidata-editors the change might be OK, but for the Wikipedias it is not. 23:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)