Stewards' noticeboard

←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 is not the place for stewards requests. To make a new request, see steward requests and requests and proposals . For illustration of steward policies and use, see the steward handbook . See also: Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard. This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.

Stewards

• About stewards
• Elections
• History

Requests

• CheckUser information
• Global blocks & locks
• Global rights
• Local bot rights
• Local rights
• Account renaming
• Miscellaneous requests
• URL blacklisting
• Title/username blacklisting

For stewards

• Help
• Policies
• Bugs
• Mailing list
• #wikimedia-stewards^connect

Noticeboards

• Access policy noticeboard
• Stewards' noticeboard

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

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)

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)

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)

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)