Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2016-03

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About new possible administrator in Armenian Wikipedia

Dear Stewards, In user Aram Soghomonyan's request for adminship[1], 24 users voted support, but some Armenian Wikipedia admins blocks users, which is votes oppose, or possible oppose voters. Also Aram Soghomonyan violates Wikietiquette, he was called 6AND5 "evil" ("For god's sake, stop this evil."), says "like the moth demolishes everything", "Block her and with her retinue throw out of here!". He to Armenian Wikipedia admins, Erjanik, Geo, and Beko says "stop all this", meaning block 6AND5[2]. This is full translation of that statement: "This already is end of patience, let deems to violation of Wikietiquette, but I must a say, that it's time to clear off all this and do with serious works. Erjanik, Geo, Beko, stop all this. Enough! two days of that person is on Wiki, and look what do, like the moth demolishes everything. For god's sake, stop this evil. Block her and with her retinue throw out of here!". Please pay attention of this. --Vadgt (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Also the voting started in January 29, but on voting page writed that closes in 27 February, by Armenian Wikipedia law, voting time length is 1 month, that is 29 February. --Vadgt (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A note about this issue was recently left at the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard, but I think this is more of an issue for stewards than for the board. Can anybody offer guidance or assistance? This vote here on Meta seems to support 6AND5's position: Requests for comment/Indefinite block the user:6AND5 in the armenian Wikipedia (though I should acknowledge, I know nothing more than I have read on these pages, and I don't speak Armenian). -Pete F (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that no groups are equipped to deal with these sorts of situations. Stewards are supposed to implement consensus; as a group, we don't have the mandate to be sorting out local drama (even though we end up doing so). Ajraddatz (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: in the top of that page is petition for unblock 6AND5. @Ajraddatz: 6AND5 offers Meta arbitration idea for that wikiprojects, whiches is no arbitration committee, appeal block in Meta arbitration, but this idea now unlikely to adopt, because for that idea are more oppose votes, than supports. --Vadgt (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation report stewards visit 2015

For those interested: File:Evaluation Report- Stewards Visit 2015.pdf. Trijnsteltalk 15:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. What's point 23 in Evaluation Report- Stewards Visit 2015.pdf? Is WMF still secretly using SugarCRM? :-O And what is HRWiki? Nemo 15:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess... @User:Jalexander-WMF, User:Kalliope (WMF): can you clarify? HRWiki = the Croatian Wikipedia btw (w:hr:). Trijnsteltalk 15:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! I would never have guessed, I thought it was yet another private wiki, this time for WMF HR. Nemo 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, hrWiki is indeed Croatian Wikipedia, Kalli just capitalized the letters which I know can make it look a bit odd :). Re: Sugar cases in 23. I'm not sure what you mean by it being a "secret" Community Advocacy/Support & Safety has been using SugarCRM for internal case management for years now (2011 or so?) because we wanted an open CRM to do it. Originally it did some contact management too but it's mostly just case management now. The CRM itself is private because it contains a large amount of private information. In a perfect world I'd transition to a different system now (The open source version of Sugar we use is no longer being updated and is not keeping up with our needs) but we have not yet been able to afford the time and resource cost of transitioning away as of yet (it's built into a lot of the tools we use for emergency response, child protection and DMCAs for example). The sugar case numbers come up in some checkuser summaries etc so that if a Steward or local checkuser comes to Maggie or I and says "wait why did staff member check this person" we can check back to see that it was a legitimate check. The Steward's asked (and we agreed, I still need to do...) if we could list some of the more common case numbers (such as for different banned users) on their wiki so that they wouldn't have to ask. Jalexander--WMF 05:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
(Minor, probably superfluous note) That PDF contains an item about old CheckUser logs. Is phab:T29807 the task they are looking for?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep. It is. Face-smile.svg Trijnsteltalk 19:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Steward elections results

The 2016 Steward elections have ended at 14:00 UTC.

The Election committee, after verifying the votes, is now ready to announce the new stewards:

  1. Masti (talk · contribs)
  2. NahidSultan (talk · contribs)

The Election committee wishes to thank all of the candidates for their time and interest and the voters for the time spent reviewing the candidates and taking part in this important global process. Also the election committee wishes to thank all the volunteers who helped in election process co-ordination

The results of the 2016 stewards confirmation will be released in the upcoming days.

For the election committee,

  1. --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Stryn (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. -- Mardetanha talk 17:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. SPQRobin (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Congratulations, and thanks to all the candidates who put their name forward in this election! Snowolf How can I help? 17:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
My greetings and the best wishes for both of you in this new role. RadiX 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I congratulated you on multiple places already, but now here too. I'm sad, though, that so many others didn't make it ... Trijnsteltalk 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
We hope for more successful candidates next time (in 12 months or before?). 2 stewards in one round it is not a lot. It probably doesn't even compensate the resignations of active stewards.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Results confirmations

For the record, here can the results of the confirmations be found. Pundit and Snowolf didn't ask for confirmation and Taketa has been removed. I'd like to thank all three for their hard work and commitment. All other stewards (except the newly elected Masti and NahidSultan of course) are confirmed for this year. Trijnsteltalk 15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)