Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2013-09
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in September 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
de.wikiquote GS status
Should de.wikiquote be opted into the GS set? It has fewer than 10 admins, and objections were not expressed at the local discussions (1, 2). --Rschen7754 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Done and also dewikiversity per request of Vogone on IRC (also less than 10 admins since a few inactive ones were removed). Trijnsteltalk 21:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No open proxies update
FYI [1] --Nemo 14:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
it.wiktionary flag inactivity policy
Hi, we received this notice about User:Nick1915's inactivity. I wanted to notify that we already have a policy for inactivity, though, and since it has local consensus, I find it more appropriate to don't touch it and keep it as it was. --.sEdivad (msg) 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done, I added a note on the admin activity review list, see here. Thanks! Trijnsteltalk 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! --.sEdivad (msg) 22:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting us know QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! --.sEdivad (msg) 22:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Account creation problems on hr.wiki
Hello stewards. I'm having problems logging in to the Croatian wikipedia. The error message, roughly translated:Error in the application
<user account "PEarley (WMF)" was banned for creating. Coincides with the following phrase from the black list: . * [AZ \? \! \ *] {3}. <casesensitive|newaccountonly> *
Could I be exempted somehow from the blacklist? It is quite important that I'm able to deliver a message to the Croatian wikipedians about VisualEditor as soon as possible. Any assistance in this would be appreciated. (I assume this is related to the bracketed string in my username?) Regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Croatian Wikipedia has a lot of weird restrictions like that. They should make it at least exclude WMF, if they know that much about regex. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- This has been resolved after an IRC chat. Cheers to PiRSquared17 and Vituzzu. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Regexp is OK. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- This has been resolved after an IRC chat. Cheers to PiRSquared17 and Vituzzu. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
GS wikis
The following 5 wikis have less than 10 admins, and have no known opt-out discussion - should they be removed from the opt-out GS set?
Rschen7754 20:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure. All admins editted in 2013 and most of them editted recently. Thogo suggested to ask them to do administrative work, if they're not doing it. Maybe that's an idea? I know I added some wikis recently to the GS wikiset, but there was a need to add them (well, for most of them). I don't really see the need here. Trijnsteltalk 19:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant was, check whether they are doing administrative work whenever necessary or if it lies around for ages. If they are doing it, there is no need for GSs there. If not, one could ask them to do it, before putting GSs aboard. --თოგო (D) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that by default, they were supposed to be reinstated, per Global sysops, unless they decided to opt out - is this not the case? --Rschen7754 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Added es.wiktionary following m:AAR. --Rschen7754 21:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that by default, they were supposed to be reinstated, per Global sysops, unless they decided to opt out - is this not the case? --Rschen7754 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant was, check whether they are doing administrative work whenever necessary or if it lies around for ages. If they are doing it, there is no need for GSs there. If not, one could ask them to do it, before putting GSs aboard. --თოგო (D) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I oppose making them GS wikis simply because they have less than 10 sysops. GS wikis are defined as those with less than 3 active sysops or 10 total sysops, and that was good for creating the initial wikiset, but the latter hasn't been used as a reason for changing the wikiset in years. The projects would just be badly surprised if suddenly they become GS wikis (and then maybe even because of the inactivity removals. Who knows if they wouldn't have opposed them then?). Better to propose an opt-in... --MF-W 22:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps m:GS should be changed then, if the policy page doesn't reflect reality? --Rschen7754 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Resolving admin / policy disputes on wikis without arbitration mechanisms
Given the persistent RFC's about admin and community problems on hr.wp, most recently 2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia - which seems to involve most of the current and former admins - it seems we do need a process for global review. Are any stewards currently thinking about this? –SJ talk 22:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- There was Requests for comment/Global requests committee, but it went stale. --Rschen7754 22:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I just closed the old RfC to unify the discussion on Talk:Global requests committee. A new RfC with more detail about implementing the current draft (asking for support, specifying an election along with the steward elections in Jan, running meta and global notices) would be appropriate. Having a tangible case that requires such a group may make it easier to resolve. –SJ talk 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/60 on Meta
Per MZMcBride, this filter is unneeded and only gets (almost exclusively!) false positives, with the possible exception of some of the first few hits. Since Meta admins don't have abusefilter-modify-restricted (see Meta:Babel), it cannot be dealt with locally. I'm not sure if this is the best place to request this, so please move this to SRM if that is a better forum. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Disabled for you - QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Oversighted lock?
I've been told that name hidden (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) has been locked and oversighted by Tegel. This is after the lock request was mistakenly marked as done and fixed. Can another steward please confirm that the account is locked? Also, is there any way for others to see that the account is locked? Why would the lock itself be hidden? When I look at the account on Commons with popups, I just see Blocked. I look for an entry in the global account log, and there's nothing. What's the point of hiding a simple log entry, so that sysops and others on local wikis can't tell that the account is locked? INeverCry 01:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Account is locked and oversighted. Others stewards can check if account is locked and oversighted. If global account is oversighted, it will appear on CentralAuth as if it never existed. So, a non-steward can read that as if the account never existed or was oversighted. If a local oversighter block and oversight an account, you won't see the block log either unless you are an oversighter. For the same reason, lock logs are not seen publicly. An account is oversighted because its user name has something that shouldn't be seen for some reason and that is why it is hidden on logs too. If it was still available on logs, there would be no point on hiding.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 01:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- The confusion comes from the fact that the account creation log entry for this account is still visible on Commons and Wikisource, where the account was blocked before the lock. Seems strange that a local oversighter would have to hide those entries, while all the others are already hidden. INeverCry 01:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've asked a Commons oversighter to hide the log entry on Commons. I don't edit Wikisource... INeverCry 01:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- If it is not hidden, it is a flaw IMO. Creation of local logs is not a reason to keep it visible. In cases like this, you can always revdelete the logs while waiting for an OS'er.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's a definite flaw, as you suggest. I already rev del'd it on Commons. I just don't see why a steward would hide some log entries and then be ok with leaving 2 entries visible? Does steward policy prevent a steward from basically completing an action? It seems ridiculous that 2 oversighters on 2 other projects would have to be contacted and told about the situation in order to complete the hiding process, when a steward on Meta has already hidden a dozen of the same exact log entries on other wikis. Inconvenient and confusing at best. INeverCry 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Some users tend to be very angry when we try to give this kind of help.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's the sad truth there. I guess we'll have to just hope someone fixes that flaw. INeverCry 04:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Some users tend to be very angry when we try to give this kind of help.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's a definite flaw, as you suggest. I already rev del'd it on Commons. I just don't see why a steward would hide some log entries and then be ok with leaving 2 entries visible? Does steward policy prevent a steward from basically completing an action? It seems ridiculous that 2 oversighters on 2 other projects would have to be contacted and told about the situation in order to complete the hiding process, when a steward on Meta has already hidden a dozen of the same exact log entries on other wikis. Inconvenient and confusing at best. INeverCry 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- If it is not hidden, it is a flaw IMO. Creation of local logs is not a reason to keep it visible. In cases like this, you can always revdelete the logs while waiting for an OS'er.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)