Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2016-08

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 on 01 August 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Disabling Special:AbuseFilter/89

It would seem that there has been a change of circumstance with the edits being monitored through Special:AbuseFilter/89. Would it be possible for a steward to deactivate that filter at this point of time. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've also asked stewards a few times to disable this because it doesn't serve any useful purpose (that cannot be found out by other tools) and spams the abuse log here at Meta. --Glaisher (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Disabled. Savhñ 08:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Noting that while the filter has been disabled and de-globalled it is still actively logging. Bug created and add Savh, and stewards project.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Savhñ 08:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam

Have a look at https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=114.152.96.34 and https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=114.152.92.33. There might be more spam in that range. --Pine 05:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked for a week. It'll also give us time to investigate deeper. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio 10:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Urgent question

I need an answer please to this question: is a sysop allowed to reblock an account every 24 hrs in order to indefinitely prolong an autoblock on the underlying IP? This looks to me like a covert way to effectively put an indefinite block on the IP, in a case where such a block is not justified (or else it would be done overtly). The sysop involved is User:Franz Xaver on Wikispecies. He is doing it to prevent nondisruptive socking by me. Thanks Osoriinae (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

He could also just ask your IP at SRCU and block it directly, if you prefer. Nemo 05:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Now globally blocked, if that answers your question. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
To answer your specific question, yes it is allowed (or rather, it is wholly in the remit of the local community at the relevant project to determine if it is permissible). There is no global rule or policy preventing it. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Osoriinae: Strange question. The only reason that an admin would wish to take such behaviour would be due to someone (YOU!) trying to circumvent a block. If you were seen to be trying to circumvent a block, then the administrator should definitely stop the behaviour of daily blocks, and request a checkuser block the IP address for a year. That should solve the obvious problem.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding to global bots enabled wikis

Hi,

been suggested by some people (including stewards) to leave a note here...

I'd need to allow global bots on skwikibooks and skwikisource. There is no community there, so there is no way how to get the consensus. It can be temporarily only just for few days, as I'd need my fellow's global bot to run some maintenance there which is currently not possible due to bot being rejected after couple actions because of limits.

Thank you.

Danny B. 13:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We can give your bot temporal bot rights on these wikis. Ruslik (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if there's no community, and notwithstanding Ruslik0's suggestion, I'd advice to propose the implementation of the policy there on the local village pumps (see BPI). If after two weeks there's no opposition, it'll be enabled for everybody. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 14:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Kind of annoying buraucracy considering we have time to work on the maintenance now (holidays/vacations), but won't have it after two weeks... :-/ And also quite paradoxical approach considering the fact, that the relevant wikiset contains wikis which never asked nor approved allowing of global bots. How come, that some wikis have been / are added without following the policy and when it is really needed (fortiori if temporarily), then the policy is being bureaucratically enforced? Sad, demotivating and quite discouraging further maintenance on those lonely wikis... :-(
Danny B. 14:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
If you can identify projects on the global bot policy wikiset that were added without following the policy, please list them so we can review if it fact the policy wasn't followed and we can revert. There's no point complaining that some wikis allegedly were added without respecting the policy but now you pretend to add two without respecting the process either. Sorry if I misunderstood you. —MarcoAurelio 14:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
(with edit conflict regardless what's written bellow)
Maybe I misunderstood you - as long as you are not negating Ruslik's offer (which is good enough to solve the current need), I don't care ATM. We just simply want to do some maintenance which we can't ATM due to bot being rejected after several actions.
Danny B. 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've proposed the policy on sk.wikibooks and sk.wikisource; meanwhile, I think that if there's a need, we can add both projects temporary to the wikiset for that maintenance. —MarcoAurelio 14:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Which is what I actually asked for... ;-) A temporarily, but immediate solution...
Danny B. 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
As temporary solution, please give bot flag for sk.wikibooks and sk.wikisource for User:JAnDbot. JAn Dudík (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Bot flag granted masti <talk> 20:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Persian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Election

Hello Stewards,

This year, the Persian Wikipedia community is going to hold the Arbitration Committee Election using SecurePoll just like the English Wikipedia. We have taken care of all the arrangements. We just need 2 stewards to volunteer to serve as scrutineers. Please read the instructions for further information. We would prefer if scrutineers do not have much involvement with fawiki in order to help preserve the integrity of the election. The current timetable will have voting between 13 and 26 September. We expect a voter turnout of fewer than 100 users, so the scrutineering will be quite an easy task, and hence we hope the results to be announced on 30 September, if not earlier. Please feel free to contact me or User:Huji if you have any questions. Thanks in advance, 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio and Ruslik0: Would you please consider this request? 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Thank you for your kind offer, but I have to decline for time reasons. Those dates I have been scheduled several tasks already. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I'm free in that period and can help in that matter. einsbor talk 17:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Einsbor.
We need a second steward just to make sure that everything goes smoothly. @Ajraddatz: Would you please join Einsbor and help us in that matter? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't have the time. I've sent a mail to our list though, and hopefully someone else will be able to step up. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I can do this. --MF-W 00:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MF-Warburg. I sent an email to you and Einsbor. We make further coordination through email. This thread can be closed and archived now. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)