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.
Stewards
Meta-Wiki Steward.svg
Requests
For stewards
Noticeboards
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.

AAR15[edit]

Hello. In light of the very slow speed the process is being handled, mainly because just one or maybe two of us are processing things there, I'd like to propose to appoint some delegates to perform the notification job. The appointment of stewards' delegates is allowed by policy. I'd like to propose Rschen7754 and Billinghurst, both former stewards and very hard-working people with knowledge of the process. We badly need help there so also if anybody else is interested if they could please list their name here that'd be good. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 18:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that if anyone has some ideas how to make this process technically easier, that would also be a great help, as the current way of doing it is rather tedious and off-putting (certainly to me, and I kind of invented it). --MF-W 22:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
+1; maybe the possibility to bot-message the users and the pumps would help a lot? —MarcoAurelio 22:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: I am never sure that I was particularly active with the original set of notifications, let alone the follow-up. I am aware that there is the need for a systematic process for the components, and the use of bots and tools to get the process function. It would be useful to identify the mechanics of the parts that are being undertaken, and where you are wishing to have assistance, ie. what is/are the bottleneck/s?

Further what have stewards done to investigate streamlining the process? For example, has use of stewardbots been considered? What about mediawiki message delivery? Have you a process to have the pertinent messages available in recipient languages? These sorts of initiatives should improve compliance and involvement of the relevant communities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I will have much if any time to contribute, but I suppose it does no harm to leave me as a delegate, just in case.
I copied and pasted the most used translations into a file, and had that on hand instead of having to manually copy and paste from the translations page. It may be possible to use MediaWiki message delivery or streamline the process as suggested above. --Rschen7754 08:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I think the new "activity log" that was added this year is unnecessary and just adds extra paperwork. --Rschen7754 08:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A few additional thoughts:

  1. There is some inconsistency in notifying users on other wikis apart from the one where the rights would be removed. Do we need to do this? I did out of a courtesy, but it is not required per policy.
    Also, there are crosswiki notifications, something I didn't have when I did AAR14.
  2. MassMessage could be used to speed up things if there are a lot of users at one wiki: we could set up a list of users, and then message them all. The messages could probably be left as "Your admin/bureaucrat status on the Chinese Wikipedia" and then we could assume that crats could figure out that they have the crat bit too.
    Or, we could batch it up and say "Your admin/bureaucrat status on this wiki", but it would require the messages to be re-translated.
    As far as languages, we could either just use English and add a link to other translations, or do all the English language ones, the Spanish ones, etc.
    Speaking of which, for the smaller languages, I often had to figure out what language to use, by looking at Wikipedia and figuring out what "czb" or whatever was, then going back to Wikipedia and figuring out what major language that was closest to, then if we had a translation for that, or if not, just falling back to English. Having a conversion table for that would help so we didn't have to reinvent the wheel every year.
  3. Unfortunately, I can't figure out a way to streamline the village pump notifications, beyond the hope that doing the individual notifications would cause some folks to resign and save us some of the work. Unless using MassMessage would at least keep us out of having to go to the individual wiki and navigating the edit window, or we could instead of listing the individual users, say "go to this page on Meta and see who is listed under your wiki" but that's a mess and might not fly. --Rschen7754 02:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem I see with MassMessage is that only allows a specific message to be delivered on one single language, so we would need to build a list of users by language and message them all. Also, since the messages on the village pumps have to contain the names of the affected users, that makes it un-massmessageable. Maybe for last year we could ask if somebody would be willing to program a bot that, parsing data from the /Data page, could reach village pumps and users on that project with the appropriate messages; but I'm not sure if that'll be easy to do or not. —MarcoAurelio 11:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose administrators on Zulu language Wikipedia are able to comprehend Zulu etc. And sending messages by wiki is what has been done all the time, as far as I am aware. Or is your point that most wikis are smallish ones with only 2-3 affected users each at max.? --Vogone (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmph, what? I mean that we should use a bot which, parsing the names from /Data, picks the translated messages for the language of the project then post them to the village pumps and user talk pages.—MarcoAurelio 16:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Even if there was such a thing as cross-wiki preloading of edit pages, it would make things easier. Or if not, even a link to a "new section" for the user talk page, and to CentralAuth. --Rschen7754 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Stewards
  1. You have a shared bot (StewardBot) [and you should look to reclaim and merge the versions of that bot fwiw. [1] ]
    1. You may wish to consider granting rights to the bot to trusted non-stewards to assist as it has no special person data access
  2. It has access to pywikibot that can be set to deliver messages
  3. You have ready access to Wikidata to identify each of the village pumps, and you know the user accounts
  4. You have access to translation tools that can have a text or wikitext version of an English message and other languages can be generated here at meta by volunteers.
So I think that much of the notification components can be managed within the group, or under the direct ægis of stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


Update[edit]

Well, I had the time, so I just went ahead and did the rest of the notifications. Removals should start around August 5th. --Rschen7754 03:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough. THANK YOU. —MarcoAurelio 10:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the removals can now start for some of the wikis, since it has now been 1 month. Just in time for the Olympics. --Rschen7754 00:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Latin Vicipaedia[edit]

Thank you for your work on this, and I'm sorry that we at Vicipaedia were slow to reply. In fact we do have a policy of our own -- this is it in English -- but we hadn't got round to applying it in the case of la:Usor:Myces, hoping he would show up again. You've meanwhile notified him, and I guess you may as well continue with your process in his case. However, in future, we'll keep an eye on this issue and notify inactive admins ourselves. OK? Andrew Dalby (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: In this case the global policy cannot be applied - you will need to request this at SRP if you want their rights to be removed. --Rschen7754 00:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks for your reply. Andrew Dalby (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Allow some kinds of snowball close?[edit]

In Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Global_sysop_for_DAR7, User:Ruslik0 closed the request for "It makes no sense to continue this discussion". However, this is against Meta:Snowball, which says no discussion can be closed early. I proposedpropose to accept some kinds of snowball close if there're clear consensus against something.--GZWDer (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

SRGP is better questioned at SN, moved. — regards, Revi 12:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Where did you propose this? I can't find it. --MF-W 13:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Meta:Snowball says "Don't close discussions early; editors from the English Wikipedia, please note that we don't do Snowball closures on Meta-Wiki." I think this should be changed.--GZWDer (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess he meant "propose", not "proposed". --Stryn (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that early closure can perfectly be covered under IAR. There was no point to continue that vote knowing beforehand that it won't succeed. It won't return any benefit to Meta nor the candidate to do so. I've also closed this user RfA earlier for the same reasons, and did so in good faith. —MarcoAurelio 16:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Closing any that vote knowing beforehand that it won't succeed is just Snowball clause, which is prohibited by Meta:Snowball. Perhaps Meta:Snowball needs to be updated.--GZWDer (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the justification for snowball, it is more to prevent obviously successful discussions from being closed early than the other way around. Early users here on Meta-Wiki were concerned with things being pushed through without proper comment; it is always acceptable IMO to close requests that will obviously fail early (though not prematurely, if that makes sense) for the sake of everyone. I think IAR is a good thing here, though it could be explicitly updated in the Meta policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
+1 --Rschen7754 18:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The snowball clause in enwiki works like this. It is only used by requests that will obviously fail early, but not obviously successful discussions. This is why I think Meta:Snowball should be rewritten - the snowball in Meta should be worked like in enwiki, not "different from enwiki" as Meta:Snowball says.--GZWDer (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was in some sense application of IAR on my part. The user clearly misunderstood the scope of the global sysop usergroup. They, in fact, applied for a position of "a global administrator" that does not exist. So, it could be theoretically rejected without any discussion whatsoever. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we all agree that Ruslik0's actions were fine, so there's no need to continue with this discussion in here but rather on Meta:Babel or other more suitable place to discuss the amendment of the policy should the community wishes to do so. However IAR is also policy as well. —MarcoAurelio 11:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I have re-read relevant policies including Meta:Snowball and Global sysops. I actually do not think the former (a local policy) applies to global user rights assignments by stewards. They are governed only by the respective global policies like the later, which says "The request will be approved by a steward if there is a consensus for the user to become a global sysop after a period of discussion of no less than two weeks." This does not prevent early closures of obviously unsuccessful requests. Meta:Snowball applies only to local discussions on meta or to cross-wiki requests for comments. Both are outside the steward's remit. The requests for global userrights can, in fact, be granted or rejected on timescales much shorter than two weeks - often only a few days. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The policy at GS requires a "period of discussion of no less than two weeks", as you quoted. It makes no sense to claim that they should be shorter because of that. --MF-W 18:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
It requires it literally only in case of promotion but not rejection. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
While I agree with Ruslik's interpretation of the policy, I see no issue running for two weeks. A person can withdraw if they so choose to close an application to stop any discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
p.s. If you don't want commentary you should ... {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}}  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wong128hk@zhwikiquote administrator term[edit]

Would any disinterested stewards please reconsider the one-year administrator term of this user? [2] I consider new steward NahidSultan has granted excessively long permission [3] for these reasons [4]:

  1. Special:CentralAuth/验证码 has tried to support twice, but then blocked globally, so it should probably have not been counted.
  2. Special:CentralAuth/Stang and Special:CentralAuth/Richard923888 have not edited on Chinese Wikiquote often, so their supports should probably have not been overvalued.
  3. Frequent failure to have edit summaries may suggest the risk of leaving no reason for administrator's privileged actions, so I have considered the candidate not trustworthy. Having served a year before does not automatically justify similar renewal.
  4. Stewards policy#Don't override consensus: "If there are any doubts as to whether or not an action should be performed, stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it." Therefore, I consider NahidSultan's granting one year without acknowledging the above points [5] too fast. If I were a disinterested steward, I would mark it on hold pending further review.
  5. Steward handbook#Administrator and bureaucrat rights: "Three months is a common period for temporary rights."
  6. Steward handbook#Temporary rights: "The precise duration is a matter of discretion; three months and six months appear to be the most common."

As a former steward and former Chinese Wikiquote bureaucrat who has been willing to yield the privilege to grant administrators to you stewards, shortening the permission to a fairer term seems better, then Chinese Wikiquote will hold a new vote as desired. Granting one year for our very small community looks too premature when the supports have not been unanimous. Thanks for understanding as I have appealed to NahidSultan unsuccessfully.--Jusjih (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the difference between 6 months and 12 months so significant? If that there was no consensus, as you think, then the permission should not have been granted at all. But the length of temporal administrative access has never been proportional to the number of votes that one got. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely yes. The differences among 1 month, 3, 6, 12 months, and permanent permissions are very significant and important. Otherwise, why should I have trusted you stewards by my resigning as a bureaucrat on many smaller Chinese wikis? I never insist that the permission should not have been granted at all, but I would consider granting 1 to 3 months only much more appropriate for this case. Perhaps from now on the length of temporal administrative access should be proportional to the number of votes that one got, but just a soft guideline, not a hard rule. Otherwise, should suspicious sock puppetry be counted? Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Outsider's point of view. If the community is requesting a shorter period of temporary administration, then that seems reasonable. If there is not seen to be a consensus for that community request, then that should be said. Denying the community's request is not appropriate. A steward in this case is solely to act as a crat to follow the community's consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So a shorter term of 1 to 3 months is a much better compromise than 1 year or not at all. Please reconsider the term, or it will clearly affect how I comment in the next annual stewards' confirmation. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Threatening to mass-oppose steward confirmations is a terrible way to get us to do something. If there is a legitimate case to be made here, please make it. I would recommend listening to Billinghurst above - is there community consensus for the term to be shortened? Or is this your own opinion? And what practical difference would 6 months vs. 12 make; i.e. is the community dissatisfied with the performance of the admin currently? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I would say "vowing to mass-oppose" as saying "threatening to mass-oppose" may sound like unwillingness to consider criticism, which may discourage someone from supporting in steward confirmation. I am sending a concern about Wong128hk to your private email. When a steward action is questionable from the first place, you stewards should correct it. At the last time, we at Chinese Wikiquote simply voted for or against the candidate, without saying how long, so there has not been community consensus for one year.--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
No, and you repeated the same type of behaviour with that last comment there. I highly recommend that you ask nicely if you want something done; threats won't go a long way. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam[edit]

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)

2016 Persian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Election[edit]

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

Urgent question[edit]

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[edit]

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)