Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2012-08

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in August 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Notice to stewards of community request at tpi.wikipedia

Good evening. Further to the above, please be advised that a local community request has been placed at requesting input over the next 7 days, to ask the local community whether we should opt out of the Global sysop program. I will be in touch further should this gain consensus, or if there is no local objection within one week from the opening of the discussion. It may be slightly longer as I am moving to Germany over this coming weekend, and will be out of touch for a few days while I get set up. Please bear with me. Thank you. BarkingFish (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

All this because you made a bad decision blocking a bot... wow. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a one sided thing, Ajraddatz, and please don't make it sound like it is. I might have made a bad decision - Vituzzu made another one - all I'm doing is asking the community if they still want GS there or not. I will abide by any decision either way, if they say they do, so be it. BarkingFish (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
But, as you say, you are the only one who usually votes on such things. That, and you are talking about an automatic pass if nobody objects, which seems very likely. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I got my admin perms the same way, because nobody objected. Should I hand those back too because it seemed "very likely" that it would automatically pass? BarkingFish (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I kinda have to agree, this proposal seems very (pardon the cliché)Frood (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not pointy, but it's hopeless; you are in the same quagmire as any other "small" wiki. You now need something like 5 (or what wasit?) active users who support your idea. If you don't get those, global sysops will remain. This was the same situation that led to global sysops in the first place: Smaller wikis' protests were outvoted by users from wikis who would not be affected by any decision anyways. So I suggest you just close that request, you'll never get enough people to support you. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In the past, Seb az86556, due to the limited size of the active userbase at tpi, we have gone either based on any comments, or on an absence of objection to a proposal. I was made an administrator there on the same basis. This is why I put the message there - to give people a chance to say yes or no, and on a small wiki, the fact that we can be "outvoted" by non local members doesn't seem right. I will leave the message there. A local consultation process is simply not possible - it's the same reason we don't have a local RFA procedure, or I wouldn't have needed to come through the stewards to do it. BarkingFish (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand. All of us unimportant people are in the same boat. Nonetheless, few or no votes will not be accepted by meta to opt you out of global sysops. Or maybe you could start the revolution and let everybody else know... Seb az86556 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Precisely why I have plastered the notification of the discussion up in the Sitenotice there. Hopefully enough people will see it, and comment. I don't see anything on the Global Sysops page here regarding opting out, which gives a minimum limit - it just says "local consensus" and as I say, we don't have a big enough userbase to gain consensus for damn near anything - so we get ignored because enough people aren't there to say yes or no? BarkingFish (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Not saying that's right or I approve of it, but "yes". Seb az86556 (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who disapproves of that. Regardless of the size of the community, something should be in place so that "no objections from local users" should be allowed as a reason to turn something on or off. We did it with the abuse filter, I got my admin privs the same way, what the heck is so different about this? Anyway, I'm out for now. I'll carry on this tomorrow, but there needs to be a policy change here. Ignoring the issue because we don't have enough people to speak out about it is absolutely wrong. BarkingFish (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've seen here. The global sysop proposal was passed, by consensus from users, across an extremely wide spectrum of Wikimedia projects. The purpose is to assist small communities with few or no active administrators with routine maintenance. You are putting your project at a severe disadvantage if you attempt to opt-out, because you are the only administrator; so if you are absent at any point, stewards will only deal with stuff anyway. The fact that you disagree with this one action (from a steward, not a global sysop) is fair enough, but to attempt to opt-out of the global sysop wikiset is a rather pathetic overreaction. I highly doubt this proposal will get the consensus needed, but really, a bit of perspective is needed here. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The way you're portraying this is simply not true. Global sysops was passed by a consensus of users from English, German, French, Dutch, and maybe a few other so-called large wikipedias. Objections from those who'd actually be affected by the change were overruled. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Seb. Peter - you will notice that I am not attempting to get our Wikipedia opted out - I am simply, as I stated to Ajraddatz above - "asking the community if they still want GS there or not." - But as you already said, if we don't have the global sysops there, the stewards will do the job anyway. So what is wrong with getting rid of the global sysops since the stewards can back up and do the work anyhow? As for the GS policy being passed by the larger wikipediæ, whatever happened to listening to the little guy? BarkingFish (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It is very unlikely tpiwiki will be opted out of GS wikis as you're the only active admin there. The other one is inactive for over six years now. Trijnsteltalk 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, such a small wiki with only one active admin and only 5 active editors (as in over 5 edits in the last 30 days) should not be allowed to opt-out. Snowolf How can I help? 07:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Note - Thanking those above who spoke about this, and apologizing profusely for my utter rudeness in this debate, I can confirm that I have closed the proposal at tpi.wikipedia.org as did not succeed - based primarily on the objections of those people who came to comment at the site. Thank you for your time. BarkingFish (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Safer Central auth form - confirming of SUL account deletion via gadget

Hello,

on Bencmq's request I created small gadget Confirm account deletion (to be found in steward's section of gadgets) which adds a confirmation dialog on Delete this account button to prevent accidental deletions.

Enjoy.

Danny B. 05:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A much needed function (for n00bs like me). Thanks for the help! Bencmq (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Useful for all. Even with caution, sometimes you click that in error and it's irreversible. We've requested two years ago at bugzilla:23243 such a function to be integrated in the CA with no reaction at the moment. Regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Global block of 204.93.32.0/19

Can someone please review the global block of 204.93.32.0/19? I've been trying to follow up on an unblock request from 204.93.60.20 on en.wiki for about a week now. I left a message on the blocking steward's talk page, but he appears to have misunderstood my request and has granted me global IP block exemption (which I certainly don't mind, but I'm not the affected user). Per the unblock request, this is apparently the address of a library to which Giglinx has leased a line (i.e., this is not a colocated server); pursuant to a request at w:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests, I checked the address and found no open proxy. If this block could be changed to anon. only, I'd be most appreciative; I don't think unblocking the range locally would be appropriate. Thanks, — madman 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Log - Few stewards seem to watch this page or most are in vacation :) - Please note that anon. only global block will still prevent users from creating accounts, although you have an WP:ACC process for requesting accounts if my memory doesn't fail. I'll ask for details and if there's no problem we can consider either removing the block, changing it to anon. only or other measures. I'm removing your global-ipblock-exempt flag. I hope you don't mind but it is for people that really needs it :) Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wic2020@id.wikipedia

Presumably this request to be processed as soon as possible. Sincerely. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Trijnsteltalk 22:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:POINT tpi:Wikipedia:Haus bilong toktok#Notification to community for opt-out of Global Sysop program