Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Stewards noticeboard)
Jump to: navigation, search
Stewards Stewards' noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the stewards' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.
  • This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
Meta-Wiki Steward.svg
For stewards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

Meta RFCs on Arabic and Romanian Wikipedia[edit]

Hello. I would like intervention from stewards please. Both discussions have gotten longer and lengthier. I'm unsure whether either one needs a closure. However, I need some management please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I am not sure that you understand the role of stewards. They have no special role in RFCs at meta, nor do they have an official issue resolution role. These are independent communities that set their policies and processes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh... My apologies, billinghurst. It's just... Aldnonymous suggested your opinions on those. --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am no longer a steward, so these my opinions based on my experience at a past time. Stewards can have opinions and they should definitely be able to speak. Though people may hear, they often don't listen, and less will they be heeded. So when you ask for an intervention from a steward in a deeply divided or heavily weighted community, and one to which a steward has no power to do anything but to influence, then there is next to no hope of success as people aren't ready to listen, they are not willing to change their perspective, and they see an outsider coming in telling them that they are wrong, and all that usually for a language they do not speak.

Documents that are worthwhile to reference

 — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This is why I told George Ho to stay out of politically charged RFC, it's almost impossible to resolve, I talked to George why he should stay out of it, because I'm worried he might be mired in these RFCs for a long period of time without any conclusion to the RFCs case.--AldNonymousBicara? 09:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, among other things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

SRG trolled again[edit]

Hello on Steward requests/Global keep using a soft redirect to Favonian's user page on Wikipedia can you please global block the user for this -- 20:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

SRCU request pending since June[edit]

Steward_requests/ needs attention. I'm currently short of time to do this. Thanks! —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to move two pages to MediaWiki: namespace on kn.wikipedia[edit]

Hello, in order to fulfill phab:T172894 two pages in MediaWiki: namespace must be edited. Because I was told that local admins are almost inactive, I'm requesting stewards to do it instead of them. Please move w:kn:User:Martin Urbanec/MediaWiki:Newuseredit-summary and w:kn:User:Martin Urbanec/MediaWiki:Newusermessage-template to MediaWiki namespace at kn.wikipedia. Thank you in advance. I know that the header tells this is not a place for stewards request, I was told to use noticeboard by Tegel on IRC. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Unified login..[edit]

Any steward may want to take a look at Ticket:2017071210017773.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you move to our queue? I am not able to access it--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Shanmugamp7:--Face-tongue.svgEven I am now not able to access it.Some other user has probably locked the ticket.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Even if other user has locked it, we should be able to see the ticket if we have access to the queue. @Krd: can you please check this?-Shanmugamp7 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I moved it to the stewards queue. It was in volunteers-otrs. --MF-W 18:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

INeverCry/Daphne Lantier[edit]

@Billinghurst:, @Trijnstel:, and to whom it may concern. I just want to let stewards know that while I was an admin at Wikimedia Commons under the sock account Daphne Lantier, the 80,000 log actions I performed were all legitimate and conscientious. I followed policy and didn't do a single log action that was bad or questionable in any way. If someone can let Commons admins and crats know this, I would appreciate it. I don't want to see anybody there wasting time looking for something that isn't there. They'll have plenty of work cleaning up my actions of tonight, but that was just a sendoff gesture. It was the only time I abused the tools as Daphne. I'm telling you this for the benefit of the admins and editors I like at Commons. Good night. Take care. lNeverCry 06:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I know you are a good admin (clarification) when you don't overreact; that's why I did not publicly advertise your at-the-time-almost-100%-sure socking. Unfortunately, secrets cannot be kept forever. While randomly talking with another Commons admin on IRC on August 8, our suspicions of your sockpuppetry was spoken of, and the discussion was heard and participated by the one who actually cared to file an RfCU (which we did not expect). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Stewards' use of global lock rather than community bans[edit]

Again the stewards appear to be using a global lock as a means of control that seems outside of the criteria described for global locks. It is not stewards' task to circumvent each community's ability to manage their users as they seem fit, nor to prevent users of standing from editing in a way that they believe is an inconvenience to them, or someone is causing a bit of a problem. Stewards have not been elected to put in place false global blocks, and they should refrain from taking on that role unless someone is clearly a crosswiki vandal or has been banned by one of the two existing processes.

So I ask those stewards who have put in place locks recently to review their actions, to civilly deal with those matters, and if they believe that a global block is required, then utilise the process for a ban. These wikis need to act on consensus, not with authoritarian actions, no matter how pissed off you may be with someone else's actions. I ask stewards to collectively discuss matter and reach some consensus on the use of locks and global blocks, and put that forward to the broader wiki community. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)