Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Stewards noticeboard)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
For stewards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Page resulting from an incorrect move to delete in Greek wikinews[edit]

[1]Fffv7787 (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fffv7787: Please mark any page for deletion on the local wiki per their policy. If it is just a redirect that has been created, then I wouldn't fuss it too much.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, how can I see the pages that need to be deleted?Fffv7787 (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fffv7787 If you mean pages to be deleted, on that wiki it's this page. Hope this helps. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

special:AbuseFilter/169 gambling spam[edit]

We have been getting a lot of gambling spam, much with cyrillic characters, with amounts getting through. I have been trying to get some handle on it through editing this filter with some addition of phrases, though I may have to go a little harder on single words with exclusions or certain wikis or language groups. Please ping me if someone is having issues raised with you. I am hoping that the fine tuning we have done over time with other components is going to minimise false positives, however, bold steps are not always perfect.

I have roped in Martin Urbanec to look at some of the accounts to see if we can get a hold of these confirmed accounts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Further comment, seeing something similar for Polish and Indonesian language spam. I am thinking that we are going to need to utilise the newer AF term wiki_language and and sectionalise the respective language terms with conditions to exclude terms for the respective wiki language sets. To do this it is probably wiser to migrate some of the filters to new filters, set them in test until demonstrating suitably low false positives, and then swap over. Where I am doing it I will try to add the appropriate breadcrumbs between respective filter sets.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin activity review/2020[edit]

@Openbk, Einsbor, علاء, MarcoAurelio, and Linedwell: Just a reminder :) -- CptViraj (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. We need to wait for Openbk to run the bot and post the results in the /Data subpage. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The hardest part of this task, which is updating the list of all wikis, has already been done. Now I need to create a list of inactive users, but it will take longer this year as interface administrators are also included due to recent policy changes. Don't worry - I just need to find some free time. :) Openbk (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Openbk: Thank you. Take the time you need. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Openbk. Once you're done, I'll start working on it. Thanks CptViraj for this reminder Face-smile.svg --Alaa :)..! 11:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Uncitoyen (Thank you!) prepared Admin activity review/2020/Data yesterday. We are still exchanging thoughts, but I believe everything is fine with this list. Openbk (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Openbk: Thank you very much for helping me. @MarcoAurelio, CptViraj, علاء, and MF-Warburg: and other stewards and users: I remember seeing users who they have been inactive for more than their own inactivity policy on some wikis. It can't directly AAR for these though but can a reminder be given for their own review on these projects? Also, some wikis have two Abusefilter admins, and neither of them are ever used. Exemple: q:wo:MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker [2]. Do we need to remove older Abusefilter admins on these wikis? With Openbk, we think it would be good to review them. Thanks. --Uncitoyentalk 14:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Openbk: I think some wikis may be missing on the list?, for example, explicitly opted in last year, but it is not in the /Data subpage. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Are you sure? Now I checked for mediawiki on Stewardry, there are inactive admins from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017. --Uncitoyentalk 14:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC) only opted in in August 2020, so the number of high number of more-than-2-years-inactive admins is to be expected. * Pppery * it has begun 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I went alphabetically at stewardy. Mediawiki is in the last place on this tool. The list is too long. I check since yesterday that the list I prepared. MediaWiki seems to be the hardest part. MarcoAurelio thanks for information. --Uncitoyentalk 15:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that the notice to individual users is always the same, we can use MassMessage to notify them. Let's wait until Openbk builds the list though. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Openbk's help is needed for the MediaWiki's list because this is too long and too complicated. It takes valor to add this as a person. --Uncitoyentalk 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is my list. You can check if there are any differences between our lists. Openbk (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll be handling MediaWiki. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Openbk: Thank you very much. Two lists are very similar, but there are a few differences that I prepared with the list of Openbk. For example, one of the differences is that LadyInGrey hasn't used bureaucrat rights in eswikibooks for more than 2 years. But this did not appear in Openbk's list. I also added a few January 2019 users that could possibly be affected. My list, per stewardry tool, Amire80 on hewiktionary doesn't seem to be active more than 2 years, but he/she did contribute in last year. I can say that Openbk's list is better. @MarcoAurelio: If you want, add the Openbk's list directly to data page. Then we can explain the differences in more detail. --Uncitoyentalk 15:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I suppose your list is more in line with the policy, and my list assumes that any action or edit in the last two years (even if it was not an administrative action) excludes the user from AAR. Openbk (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Except I forgot MediaWiki, I checked them all on the Stewardy tool. But I think this vehicle was a bit problematic. @Martin Urbanec: appears to be active checkuser and oversight on dozens of wikis. But on these projects, he appointed himself in just a few minutes, hours or days and his mission was over. Your list seems very successful and more detailed on MediaWiki. I check and note the other differences. :) Regards. --Uncitoyentalk 15:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Openbk: Indeed: "any action or edit in the last two years (even if it was not an administrative action) excludes the user from AAR" - Yes, that is the way the policy works, except that logs have to be administrative actions (quote: Inactivity for this case is defined as zero edits and zero administrative actions on the wiki where the rights are maintained). ANY edit or administrative action counts as activity. We don't do a per-rights review. It doesn't matter if the user is active as an admin and inactive as a bureaucrat. If they have any edit or any admin log action they are active. If the listing at /Data is following a different criteria then it's all wrong (e.g. LadyInGrey @ es.wikibooks is not inactive as she had log actions in 2020). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
And it can be argued as well that any non-admin log action is also an indication that the account is not inactive either. I think we should be using User:Openbk/list3 at this stage, whose criteria we've been following for the last 7 rounds. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Openbk and MarcoAurelio: I thought AAR for users' each right. If an user is an active admin but isn't an active bureaucrat, ignore my list. The other differences are as follows. You can also remove 3 user that they have last log/edit on January 2019 (Borislav on bgwiktionary, Lourdes Cardenal on eswiktionary, Jcb on iawiki (last edit/log in 6 January 2019)). I think two records are missing on Openbk's list. PetrohsW on eswikinews and OC Ripper (interface-admin) on shwiktionary Apart from these, it is a very applicable list. --Uncitoyentalk 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
OC Ripper (interface-admin) on shwiktionary Sorry, he/she used on August 2019. Some data seems out of date there. Really, the Stewardry tool is a bit of a problem. --Uncitoyentalk 16:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
If I remember correctly: PetrohsW edited yesterday, I prepared the list today and this is the reason why this user is not on the list. Openbk (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, ChristianT on frwikivoyage, Gmelfi on scnwiki are active admins but inactive bureacurat in my list. Except for all the differences, the most right list is yours. Thanks for your efforts. --Uncitoyentalk 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
PetrohsW editted yesterday in response to the inactivity notice I posted on his talk page at es.wikinews. He resigned permissions so es.wikinews is done. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There is 69 admin in the MediaWiki list that I have checked but not added, and 61 admin in Openbk's list. Just I looked at their edits and these 8 admins is active. Only of 8 admin 😂 on mediawiki have last log/edit on 3 January 2019. The stewardry tool that I extracted data to excel is really a problem. Most of the differences are due to the outdated data on Stewardry tool. I'm really sorry about that. It would be better that not use this tool again. Apart from these problems I have mentioned, there are no differences I can find. I think it can directly copy Openbk's list to the data page. Thanks everyone. --Uncitoyentalk 18:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Uncitoyen: Thanks for doublechecking. Is Openbk's list regarding MediaWiki administrators accurate then? I'm ready to massmessage the admins at User:MarcoAurelio/mw-inactive-admins (Openbk's list). Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Yep all right, I'm hesitant for 😂 whose last log is on January 3, 2019. --Uncitoyentalk 18:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. He's not in my list. I think I'll include him and let him decide what to do. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: What about the two WMF accounts on the list? Are they under AAR? --Rschen7754 18:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been thinking about them. I am not sure what to do @Rschen7754. AMusso (WMF) is Hashar, which is still employed. PEarley (WMF) has global staff rights, and got admin as "trusted user". Probably better if we exclude those and ask them politely whether they still need access under those accounts? AAR is a community policy after all, and I'm not sure we should be "messing" with staff accounts. What do you think? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Amusso seems to be rights granted by WMF staff so I think we would run into problems if they got removed. I think politely asking sounds like a good plan. There is also Heatherawalls who does not appear to be using a WMF account. --Rschen7754 19:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I won't notify Amusso, PEarley and Heather (although she also uses Heather (WMF)). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Uncitoyen: I took a look at the stewardry data and indeed it looks like some counts ain't right e.g. mw:User:This, that and the other. Stewardry say TTO's last edit was on 2018-10-29, but TTO's last edit is more recent. Granted, it was on a Flow topic. I shall raise this with Pathoschild (the tool maintainer) so he can take a look and see if the DB queries his tool does do fetch edits in Flow pages correctly. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Their last edit/log doesn't appear to be up to date. (Also: Matanya, Phil Boswell, ATDT, *devunt, GeorgeBarnick, Mardetanha, Sumanah) This tool won't cause much trouble for small wikis, but if large wikis use it, maybe it could be a problem. Thank you for interest. Regards. --Uncitoyentalk 20:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Need Stewards Help in[edit]

I am addressing you stewards regarding sysop rights abuse in as I need your advise - what to do in case when all the admins in (there are three admins, two of them also bureaucrats) take actions, that affects very negatively on the integrity of the community and entire project and are suppressing wiki activity and freedom of speech which are against their personal opinion? Right now I and two other users (Zangala, Deu) are blocked (Deu is blocked permanently) because of having different opinion about their actions. attempts to solve problems within have no results.

  1. administrators interfere in the discussions and voting processes about removal their status. f. ex. in the discussion about desysop user:MIKHEIl we have strong doubts about muppeting, because some users voting for MIKHEIL have not made any single edits after that voting and some users wikiactivity is only participating in wiki competition organized by "Wikimedia users group Georgia" led by MIKHEIL.
  2. admins just close any kind of topic they do not like on the forum of (f.ex. see this when topic on forum by user:Rastrelli was closed by admin Otogi and the whole forum section was protected from editing, preventing other users to comment on the issue, besides deleting their protests and the reason mentioned by admin was "Serves to destabilize") )

please also see these requests: Requests for comment/Vote of confidence on sysops and unblock for user Deu on kawiki and Requests for comment/Probleme in der Georgische Wikipedia. Relying on your advise! --M. (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Have those admins been notified of this discussion? --Rschen7754 19:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned, I am blocked on right now. I was going to post on's forum about this discussion after my block expires (January 9), if stewards could help before that, I would appreciate that --M. (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The problems have a long history in the Georgian Wikipedia.
Until 01.09.2014 in the Georgian WIkipedia was the rule, according to which the administrator who within a five-month period does not perform 250 general and 15 administrative processing, would be warned because of inactivity. In the case of repeated one-month inactivity after the warning, the vote on the deletion of admin rights would take place.
In 2014, MIKHEIL and David1010 wanted to get rid of unwanted sysops. So they introduced a new strict rule through procedural violations that was specifically tailored to specific sysops: If an administrator within 3 months does not make 500 edits and 50 sysop actions, sysop rights will be removed without voting.
In the first half of 2018 MIKHEIL could not reach this self-imposed activity limit (January-March, February-April, March-May, April-June and 17th of April to 17th of June). Against the wiki-rule and will of the wiki community he held a vote. it was about clear meatpuppetry. By still an unlawful vote MIKHEIL retained his sysop+ rights (See details and links here, chapter four). Even after that, there were several cases when MIKHEIL could not reach the set limit. The second administrator, David1010, who is the main author of the above strict rule, also fails to comply with the mandatory amount set for the administrator (1, 2). While discussing the draft rule in 2014, David1010 (the author of the draft) said that the new rule replaced the old one only because earlier the "lazy" sysops could remain inactive for five months and achieve sufficient edits only in the sixth month. He wrote that removal of sysop rights should be done automatically: "If you do not have sufficient edits, it means that you are no longer an administrator."
But the current administrators of the Georgian Wikipedia do not apply the rule they have adopted to themselves.
It is noteworthy that two of the three sysops of the Georgian Wikipedia are bureaucrats at the same time. The same two sysops are at the same time board members of Wikimedia UG Georgia (By the way, not elected, but self-appointed). Such a concentration of power is accompanied by constant discredit and threats against unwanted users. Sysops also help to convince users that the administrator is an infallible and inviolable idol. they explain to all users that it is unacceptable to criticize an administrator. They do not respond when a user warns another user and tells them to blindly trust and obey the sysops just because they are sysops.
Added to all this is incompetence. MIKHEIL promotes plagiarism in KaWiki (see chapter three). MIKHEIL also contributes poor quality articles if they are written by his friends. He blocked me just because I objected to choosing an article full of grammatical errors as featured article, I requested the deletion of the plagiarism article which Michael defended and I have requested that MIKHEIL be removed from the admin due to his inadequate edits.
All those who oppose all this are oppressed. Zangala is blocked, M. is blocked, I'm blocked. Many other users have also been blocked many times for no reason. It is impossible to discuss these problems in Georgian Wikipedia, because all initiatives are blocked from the very beginning. Zangala is threatened with a permanent block in the Georgian Wikipedia. Please help Georgian Wikipedia. Deu. 10:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm member of Georgian Wikipedia since 2011 and I fully agree with colleague from Georgian Wikipedia is literally under authoritarian regime. Everyone who not agree with "troika" gets permanent or at least long term bans. Also, there are some reasonable doubt that administration that concentrated power in hands of few persons, uses financial resources of Wikimedia foundation in corrupt schemes and taking a piece. Everyone who asked a question had been attacked and banned by admins. --OpusDEI (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Stewards generally do not get involved in local disputes. (See also User talk:-revi/FAQ#desysop). Only exception is clearcut abuse of admin permissions, which we will remove their administrator permissions, like the case of Steward requests/Permissions/2020-11#Vodomar@hrwiki. — regards, Revi 14:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
If you need neutral discussion place, you can utilize Requests for comment but still: we are not an arbitrator or a mediator and we are not in a position to resolve your disputes with the tools we have. — regards, Revi 16:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a gross oversimplification of the matter. At the core, kawiki won't enforce its own ridiculously strict inactivity policy that already removed several admins, notably because the bureaucrats themselves would be removed by that policy. --Rschen7754 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Revi, please tell us more precisely the conditions under which clearcut abuse of admin permissions should normally be affirmed. For years, administrators of KaWiki have avoided unwanted users by harassing or blocking them. Recently, user M. was blocked for participating in a Requests for comment initiated by Zangala. There are specific facts about Meatpuppetry. They patronize a plagiarized article written by their friend. This friend was neither punished nor warned, on the contrary, he even received a reward for writing this article. They block any discussion that exposes their actions. They are at the same time bureaucrats and refuse to remove their admin rights, even though it is required by their own rules. These are all facts and not thoughts, confirmed many times by many users of the Georgian Wikipedia (Please see discussions 1, 2 and 3. Most of the users are from Georgian Wikipedia). best regards, Deu. 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear revi I get your point, but we have exception here. (1) desysop someone should be the decision of the community, but in this is just impossible. as I described, sysops close such discussions. proof here sysop MIKHEIL closed the topic about desysop David1010 before the discussion began. (2) sysops MIKHEIL and David1010 block users who has voted against MIKHEIL here or here, for proof see blocking journals of user Gobrona user Rastrei F, user Deu, user M. user Zangala. Both, MIKHEIL and David1010 are sysops and bureaucrats . This is clear abuse of admin permissions and this is why I am asking for stewards help and advice --M. (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am member of Georgian Wikipedia. Georgian Wikipedia needs help. Active users are very often blocked from expressing their opinions. There is no way to suspend the admin authority. When the suspension of admin authority is discussed on the forum, then in such a discussion are always involved editors who are only active in Wikipedia during competitions and have no contact with admins. But it is strange that all those who cancel our votes are the wikistudents of those close to the admin. I say it again, similar people are active during competitions and similar discussions. How can we believe that they make decisions independently when what they vote for does not follow that new rule and they always need a reminder to follow it. Vano 3333 15:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

კარგი იქნება თუ ქართული ვიკიპედიის ადმინისტრატორებიც დააფიქსირებენ თავის აზრს. ჯერჯერობით არცერთი მათგანი არ ჩანს--ჯეო (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear friends... Dear stewards, I agree with the topics raised here by my colleagues. Unfortunately, it may not seem appropriate from the outside how difficult the situation is now in Georgian Wikipedia. The administrators are also bureaucrats. Either separate these statuses or help us solve the problems already mentioned here. The abuse of administrator rights completely damages this Georgian project. We have already asked you about this many times.--გიორგი ჩუბინიძე (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am member of Georgian Wikipedia. I used to be very active and contributed lot of my time to the development of Georgian Wikipedia. Also want to say that I never wanted any kind of official title in Wikipedia and was just contributing with translating articles. But admins behavior against other wikipedians, their ignorens and disrespect to everything we do made me to lose my courage to contribute Wikipedia. KaWiki really needs help.--პაატა შ (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Appointment & Removal policy for AFH[edit]

Hi. FYI: There is an ongoing proposal to add appointment and removal policy for the abuse filter helpers global group, see Talk:Abuse filter helpers#Appointment & Removal. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to amend the wording of Abuse filter helpers[edit]

Hello. I have started a discussion seeking consensus to modify the introductory paragraph of the abuse filter helpers page. Thanks in advance for your participation. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of user rights of locked users[edit]

Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Remove_2FA_Tester_from_BlackWidowMovie0. I personally does not oppose it, but is it an accepted practice? Analogusly in English Wikipedia user rights of blocked or banned users are not removed by default. Another thing to consider is global lock is only a technical measure; it is not a formal sanction in any sense.--GZWDer (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We typically remove user rights of locked accounts, such as log id 39504560. — regards, Revi 16:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Also Special:Redirect/logid/39041215 and probably more. — regards, Revi 16:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)