Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2023-03

Standard offer and global locks

I know the standard offer means wait a minimum of six months without block/ban evasion and then appeal on talk page or UTRS but does the standard offer apply to global locks as well? I know just local block/ban evasion would be asking for six months, but cross-wiki abuse or long-term abuse, how long would that be asking for, a year at least? The abusive account should be globally unlocked at some point in time, especially if that person has matured quite a bit since the global lock was applied. 2001:8004:2748:3BAE:A1F7:5DD4:37DC:E210 11:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

All lock appeals are handled on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature, duration, and severity of abuse. We generally expect to see that abusive behavior has stopped for a significant length of time before unlocking. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

So you would say six months without lock evasion? Because at this point I really have no other choice but to wait it out. 2001:8004:2748:3FB0:9D8D:2A82:6925:C4F6 02:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It is case by case, but generally at least 6 months would be a good start. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean case by case? 2001:8004:2748:3FB0:8444:6258:5343:FFAB 10:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Every one of these situations are unique, for example the amount of prior disruption is a factor. Assuming this is for you and it's been a significant time - file a lock appeal (there is currently a backlog) to have your case reviewed. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I was only locked about a month ago and I have two UTRS appeals at Michaelshea04 and Sheamichael2004. You can probably go ahead and deny them if you have the time because even if you do decide to unlock me now, I would still have to wait a minimum of six months to be locally unblocked. Also I'm sorry about the mass emails I've been sending you, You should delete them or send them to the spam/junk/trash folder. At this point, I really have no other choice but wait until at least mid-September, and even then, there's still no guarantee that you or any other steward might be willing to globally unlock my accounts and if any local administrator might be willing to unblock me. If everything goes well at that time, I will request a courtesy vanishing for all of my accounts which I am very much hoping will be carried out by the end of 2023.

(Yes I know I admitted to lock evasion, not revealing my accounts until now is the only way I can get you to listen to me.) 2001:8004:2748:3FB0:5C4D:91E3:662D:F23F 12:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Question answered, requested appeals were declined. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy vanishing and deletion of user talk pages.

If I request a courtesy vanishing for my accounts, will I be able to get my user talk pages from all wikis, not just the English Wikipedia, deleted as well? because when the time comes, I want absolutely nothing left behind. Why are administrators so hesitant to delete user talk pages? Why are user talk pages rarely deleted? 1.145.161.96 14:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In short: no. In general, user pages only contain information specific to the editor that made them, while user talk pages contain information that is specific to the community (and generally contain revisions authored by other contributors). As you see on every single page you publish, you release the content of your contributions with an irrevocable license - as does everyone else, something you re-agree to on every edit. In the event you are the only contributor to a user talk page, most projects will delete it as a courtesy. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also I should've mentioned before my last post was archived, can the standard offer apply to global bans as well? 1.145.161.96 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You can read about the process for overcoming a global ban on this page: Global bans. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Why does it say that user talk pages are RARELY deleted instead of not deleting them? Is it because the only time that they are is if the user themselves creates them. The reason I would want a courtesy vanishing on all of my accounts instead of a clean start is because I don't like the clean start procedure and because it has my real name in it, and because I want absolutely nothing left behind when I permanently leave, I would want them FULLY deleted and not blanked before the global rename is carried out, and they all link right back to my original account here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Michaelshea2004. Would the Functionaries or the Arbitration Committee delete my user talk pages for me? I would want them fully deleted and not blanked because I care about my privacy and if they were blanked instead of deleted, they would still exist, which is why I would want them deleted. 1.145.181.53 04:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I said above, because they can be deleted in certain cases, a gave you a rare type of example above. No pages are "your pages", all pages belong to the project, though you are the copyright author under the irrevocable license you agree to when you posted them. Nothing else to go over here. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 09:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for global IP block exemption

I would like to know which method requesting global IP block exemption permission is most recommended - via SRGP or via UTRS. There's a huge amount of users from China must access Wikimedia projects via proxy, and some of them prefer a global IPBE flag applied to help them editing other projects like commons and wikidata. Previously they were taught to fill a request at SRGP, but since several month ago, that section was occupied with UTRS ticket, I'm thinking is it more recommended to guide user to submit their request through UTRS system? It would be helpful to get suggestion from steward, so I could alter the way when guiding users - like which method is faster for requester, and easier for steward to handle. Stang 13:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Non-steward opinion: Either way, the request appears on SRGP. If I am not wrong UTRS is mainly designed for appealing a (b)lock and not solely asking for GIPBE. Through UTRS or VRTS, requests are more private and might get delayed response because all might not be active there to handle those requests. I would suggest SRGP be the most recommended way. Kind regards, Tulsi 24x7 13:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't UTRS requests get mirrored on SRGP now? That would leave just the benefit of privacy for UTRS requests. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

With my developer & steward hats, I'll try an explain the benefit of all 3 options to help you select best. And this would apply to anyone, so feel free to spread the advice.

• SRGP: This is by far the most visible and fastest option if you can do it. The two cases you can't are: 1) When there is a local meta block stopping you 2) you need privacy with your request
• UTRS: This is the second fastest option and but also has limited visibility. The only way that your request gets posted to SRGP from UTRS is if 1) your appeal is verified to your account 2) You have a global open proxy block. If you don't meet those conditions, UTRS will still take your appeal as long as you have a valid block. It just won't get posted to SRGP. There are also some factors that will change the ease and functionality over the next few months to both streamline and improve accessibility to block appeals in general. It is generally my goal to try and make it as easy as possible to use UTRS, keeping in mind I'm a volunteer.
• VRT: This is the least visible and most backlogged option. It's only meant to be a backstop for people who can't 1) post to meta 2) can't figure out the IP address of your block and therefore can't use UTRS. It's the hardest option to use because you have to wait for an available steward to go back and forth (usually 2-3 times if you aren't complete up front about the block affecting you). We are looking to improve response times, but that is also a project in itself.

Hope this help explains the options available. -- Amanda (she/her) 06:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

requesting assistance to give information on NO:WP

Hello

Adding an RFC on Ideals and realities on the ground in Norwegian Wikipedia, and not in position, due to this bloc to post a notice in NO:WP. I am acording to this requesting assistance to give information on the RFC on the NO:WP Village Pump. The title given may translate into Idealene og realitetene på bakken i Norsk Wikipedia. Andrez1 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding an RFC I seems to be obliged to -

"If the RFC concerns the conduct of several users on the same wiki, or the conduct of an entire community of a Wikimedia wiki, the initiator of the RFC must post a neutrally-worded notice linking to the RFC on a prominent page on that wiki, such as the village pump (links). If the initiator is unable to do so because they are blocked on that wiki, they must post a notice on the stewards' noticeboard requesting assistance."

- on this I need assistance. Thank You. Andrez1 (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

AAR: eswikibooks

Hello. Per discussion we'd like to keep Alhen's rights on es.wikibooks. This is currently marked as on hold in the AAR Data subpage. It can be changed to not done. Not doing this myself as es.wikibooks is one of my homewikis. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I only noticed this today, but I already dealt with regarding your comment there. -- Amanda (she/her) 14:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Steward clerks

Today, we are launching a pilot project called Steward clerks. To help reduce the current backlog of Steward VRT proxy-related tickets, we are seeking help from members of the community. Please see the page linked above for details. Feel free to disseminate this message to those who you think would be interested, especially to English speakers from different language communities.

Applications

There are two application phases to start:

• Rapid round: Apply between March 19-22 UTC, Internal review: March 23-26 UTC, starting March 27 UTC (up to 6 people - those not selected for rapid round will automatically be reconsidered for regular round)
• Regular round: Apply between March 23-29 UTC, Internal review: March 30-April 2 UTC, starting April 3 UTC

Please apply to steward-clerksgooglegroupscom. Preference will be given to those willing to use off-wiki communication methods (most likely IRC) to help with coordination and questions. When applying, please give a quick paragraph about why you would be a good fit.

Please note, signing of ANPDP and the VRT confidentiality agreement is a requirement. You will not be added to the project until this is completed. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I will say that I have thought stewards should have had clerks for a long time, though I would have thought more along the lines of running things like AAR that have a lot of components that don't actually require the tools. --Rschen7754 23:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It has definitely been talked about internally and externally for at minimum 2 years in various capacities, and we should have acted on something sooner. We may eventually expand the role, but keeping the scope limited to a critical backlog, that can easily be corrected if an issue exists should be a solid start if it is successful. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I made the stupid mistake of not allowing anyone but internal people to email the list. Should you have gotten an error, it is now fixed and feel free to send it again. Sorry about that. -- Amanda (she/her) 20:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is a Google Group being used instead of a mailing list on lists.wikimedia.org? Legoktm (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Or even @wikimedia.org Google Group, too. (Mea culpa for not pointing this out while I had the hat, I guess) — regards, Revi 15:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to reply here. At the moment, the program is in pilot mode, it's not guarentee that it will continue past 3 months. Right now, the list is used only for applications and there are only 2 people on it. It would be a bit bureaucratic to request a mailing list for just 2 people for a couple of applications. If we did move towards a coordination list, then we could consider a mailing list. As for a google group, that's an idea, but just like the mailing lists, there is no documentation that this is even possible, would be accepted, or the process for doing so or how long it would take. -- Amanda (she/her) 17:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears at least one steward clerk has now been appointed. It would be appreciated if the community were informed on the stewards' noticeboard about who is becoming a steward clerk, like is done for the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and their clerks. --Ferien (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@AmandaNP / @Operator873, perhaps listing them at Steward clerks? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was the intention, we just have a few more people in the process of applying, and I was just going to do it all at once when they were all on board. I'll go put the first three at minimum for the time being. -- Amanda (she/her) 21:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)