Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2018-08

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 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Behavioral SPI

This section was archived on a request by: MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've messaged here to know whether behavioral SPIs can be carried out on Meta-Wiki. I am blocked on Wikipedia, but I have strong suspicion the users I want to complain are socks or coordinating in some manner, even other editors and admins have expressed this concern.

However, technical connection hasn't been established and the admins don't even investigate. I complained to them but they don't even investigate. This may be because they might not accept SPI reports except on-wiki. However, since I'm blocked, I can’t file an SPI on Wikipedia.

Can a behavioral evaluation be done here? I do caution that my report will be quite long. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's something for enwiki admins and checkusers to evaluate. If you are blocked on enwiki, then you shouldn't be worrying about it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Well I'll ask them if there is any other way then. If not then I'll leave it. Thanks anyway. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


As per wikibooks:sl:Wikiknjige:Pod_lipo#IMPORTANT:_Admin_activity_review, the community wants to keep my admin rights, which expire soon due to inactivity. --Smihael (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. — regards, Revi 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 08:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding some Wikisources to global-bot wikis

Following local requests, please add the wikis listed below to global bot wikis:

Just FYI:,,,,,, and opposes in local discussion, so not forwarding requests here. voting is in progress (till end of September). and are also likely still in progress (at least waiting for more input from local users after giving them some explanation). Ankry (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

All done. — regards, Revi 08:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 08:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Add zhwikiversity to global bot wikis

See discussion.--GZWDer (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. — regards, Revi 08:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
GZWDer, should automatic approval approved as well? Or just global bots? — regards, Revi 12:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
-revi, both global bots and automatic approval. --Xiplus (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been fixed already. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Flood of spambots at deWV

Would a steward please run their eye over v:de:Special:log/newusers and see if there is anything that can be done about the spambots that attacked there yesterday, and have whacked away in our abuse filters. It would be great if there was a set of IPs that could be blocked. Thanks if you can.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Does global locks overrules local decision?

This is raised in zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/方针#Wikipedia:封禁方针#封禁申訴_的修訂:

For example, a user is firstly locally blocked in a wiki, and latter globally locked. The user appeal the block to local sysop, and local sysop decides to remove the local block. If the local sysop request unlock of the locked user, may stewards decline the unlock request? particularly, does declining violates Stewards_policy#Don't_override_consensus? What about unblocking based on a community consensus, or even when community consensus specifically request an unlock?--GZWDer (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is if the request is valid, and the user has not disrupted other wikis, then they should be unlocked. XenrøsE 02:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
It is a global lock, it wins. SRG is the place to appeal, and there are numbers of discussions over the years. The decision has always been up to the steward, and usually the best approach is to talk about process. Similarly addressing the steward directly can be less confrontational and less challenging.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Xenrose on an alt 02:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Rename OTRS-members group


I'm working on phab:T202095, and I'd like to make the internal identifier of global groups always be lowercase. I checked, and the only global group that isn't already all lowercase is "OTRS-members". I'd appreciate it if it could be renamed to "otrs-members" for consistency with the other groups and in preparation for my change.

I can take care of updating all of the messages to use the new casing. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

While you are at it, the group 'delete-global' could need a rename to 'global-deleter' for the sake of consistency. --Vogone (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Will someone take care of updating the messages as well? --MF-W 01:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Nobody has ever bothered to create messages for that group, so nothing will break while renaming (only local messages MediaWiki:Group-delete-global and MediaWiki:Group-delete-global-member + subpages do exist). Of course, that could be changed after the rename. --Vogone (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Brilliant. The group is renamed now. --MF-W 22:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The OTRS page needs fixing (the "OTRS members" links in "See also" are dead). Ankry (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Done! --MF-W 01:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I noted some possible challenges at phab:T202095, notably that project-local abuse filters will need to be updated. — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like this caused some problems with Krd's work? — regards, Revi 03:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It broke my monitoring, but I can fix it as soon as there is a free minute. Could help for the future to ping me if OTRS issues are affected. --Krd 07:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
And of course it broke all abuse filters that match on this group, which is the only intention of the group. Can somebody please please fix filter 642 at enwiki, and wherever it is also used? --Krd 17:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
enwiki one was already fixed by Xaosflux, but I have no idea where else it is being used. — regards, Revi 17:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Me neither. I fixed it on dewiki and commons. --Krd 17:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we can send an email to otrs-permissions mailing list and "stewards suddenly changed the group name, which will break the abusefilter. If you are using abusefilter, you'll need to fix it."? That should be sufficient for most part, I think. /me heads to bed — regards, Revi 17:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, please do. I will be unable to handle that for the next 10 days. --Krd 07:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)