Stewards' noticeboard

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 .</translate>

For illustration of steward policies and use, see the steward handbook .</translate>

See also: [[<tvar|in>Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard</>|Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard]].</translate>

This page is automatically archived by [[<tvar|bot>User:SpBot</>|SpBot]]. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.</translate>

Checkuser privileges removal on hr.wiki

Dear all, it became apparent to me that one of the CU's on hr.wiki (SpeedyGonsales) remained to this day in his CU seat despite the fact the voting for the removal of all of his rights was held more than two months ago (26.10. - 02.11.2013.).

The voting result concerning SpeedyGonsales was 38:45 (roughly 46%:54%) in favor of those opposing the motion to strip him of his functions [1].

However, according to the rules of hr.wiki, the necessary community support for the CU seat is not 50%, but 70%. Therefore, because he had only 54% of the community vote which is not enough for the CU privileges, I hereby submit to you that SpeedyGonsales is not considered fit for the CU function according to hr.wiki rules and ask of you, if you'd agree with my position, to remove those privileges from his account.

I would kindly ask you for your opinion and ruling, because I'm afraid that raising the question on hr.wiki in this situation would be intentionally misconstrued as personal attack and punished. Also, because of the complex situation and recent clashes on hr.wiki I would urge you to act, in accordance to your ruling, as soon as possible. --Imbehind (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request, assuming that the threshold for CU privileges truly is 70%. Is there a link to the relevant guideline? Also, what level of support is required for bureaucrat privileges on hrwiki? Miranche (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two information pages

Checkuser which talks about accession of rights requiring that level of consensus, though not about confirmations, or recalls. The stewards are expected to retain at about level of support.
Bureaucrat talks about the right, the application is usually based on consensus, and is usually a local decision made by your bureacrats.

— billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you billinghurst, I saw these, they're very informative. I was wondering, though, if Imbehind or someone else could point to the relevant guidelines specific to hrwiki. I can't find anything in the obvious places but I admit I have not the time to search too closely. The existing bureaucrats have gained their privileges with 87.5% support or more. Miranche (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local hrwiki rules will be on hrWP, and I would have thought links would have been available from hr:Wikipedija:Administratori. With regard to bureaucrats, I would say that generally there is convention or rules depending on the site. If the requirement is consensus, that is generally greater than 50% and usually substantially greater than 50%. The interwiki links from the hrwiki page or view pages like Meta:Administrators / Commons:Commons:Administrators you should see suitable enough examples of the processes. Local crats make determinations from there local rules; and where no local 'crats, then stewards undertake that role in their absence.

Checkuser is a high level right that is assessed by stewards, so local rules can only be stricter than the standard. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are OFC right. Croatian rules are the same. Here is the Croatian translation on Meta [2] used by hr.wiki. The page is linked from hr.wiki official CU page in "See more" section [3], and thus relevant on hr.wiki. I don't think that local wiki has the authority to override the CU policy anyway because the CU policy is a global one. --Imbehind 13:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to ask stewards to review the bureaucrat requirements for SpeedyGonsales as well. As Miranche pointed out above, please note that the voting that took place asked specifically for removal of all rights, including bureaucrat and CU, not just administrative ones [4]:

Croatian text: "Zbog brojnih pritužbi na njegov rad, predlažem ukidanje ovlasti birokrata, provjeritelja i administratora suradniku SpeedyGonsales"

My english translation: "Because of numerous complaints about his work, I propose the removal of bureaucrat, checkuser and administrator privileges for the user SpeedyGonsales"

Google translate: "Due to numerous complaints to his work, I suggest abolishing the powers of bureaucrats, Authenticator and associate administrator SpeedyGonsales" --Imbehind 00:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, we cannot change hrwiki's requirements to becoming a bureaucrat. However, those for becoming a CU are decided by the Foundation, which is why I've asked SG to start a vote of confidence (cf. his talk page). Elfix 08:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Elfix. FYI there may not even exist an explicit requirement for becoming a bureaucrat on hrwiki, which created the current situation where there's a crat with unprecedentedly low support. I realize this will likely be resolved only when the community itself agrees on the requirements. Miranche (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed From SG's talk page, it seems that Elfix removed his CU right on January 28. –SJ talk 10:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completed evidence gathering on alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia

Hello all. FYI, evidence gathering on alleged irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia is finished. There'll probably be some new information trickling in over time, but the process is effectively over and whatever info is there is ready to be evaluated. SN seems to be the appropriate forum to inform, and I've also left a note to Jimbo. Please forward the info wherever else you deem appropriate, or leave a note at the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very worrying that users saved on Meta links to Facebook pages where was published some personal informations, some addresses, photos and where Facebook users call for violence towards me (and also other Wikipedians from hr:wiki) and issue death threats. People from those Facebook page are associated with the media, and on basis of vandalism or disruption of user relationships they create sensational newspaper articles and so encourage each other. Having links on Meta towards the Facebook group, Meta advertises them and bypasses privacy (security) of Wikipedians, because no one can guarantee that personal data will be removed or that the extreme threats will immediately be deleted, but on the contrary, circle of people who are brave on hate speech is expanding.

Yesterday on hr:wiki someone left a message where among other again threatens revealing personal information about users of wikipedia: "Also, please tell me if I should disclose the name and address and certain other contributors of Wikipedia, for example, of someone who was born 12.12., And the like." Can you remove all links towards the hatespeech Facebook group? --Roberta F. (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta F., this strikes me as a question related to editing the Evidence pages, and perhaps for Meta administrators, rather than for stewards. I've copied your question over to the talk page and replied to it there. Miranche (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of users safety and their privacy being threatened cross-wiki and cross-internet (Meta-hr:wiki-Facebook) is quite serious, so stewards should be aware and respond. --Roberta F. (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If people want specific comments oversighted, they should email the Meta oversight list, rather than drawing more attention to the private information on a very public noticeboard. See Meta:Oversighters. --Rs chen 7754 19:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754, what needs to be done is to remove all external links to Facebook hategroup, please. And to clearly state that encouraging hatespeech on Wikimedia by encouraging hatespeech outside Wikimedia is not acceptable. --Roberta F. (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... then you should email the Meta oversight list, rather than drawing more attention to the private information on a very public noticeboard. See Meta:Oversighters. --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, please refer to here for a full talk page discussion of Roberta F.'s request. Miranche (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miranche, It is good to see this update. It isn't clear to me whether the specific proposals made in the RfC have also been discussed on hr:wp. These ideas should all be in the air and discussed there, if there is any chance that there might be some global action. Will you also be updating hr:wp with your summary? That way the local community can discuss the results of the RfC. If local discussions are already taking place, please add links to them below.

The specific proposals I see include:

A request for outside CUs to carry out CU duties. Is this still a concern?
Have hr:wp editors been working with local CUs over the past months? Who is still active among the CU community there?

Are there specific CU requests? I see a number of claims of sockpuppets by active editors and voters in related votes.

Have you communicated with the Ombudsmen, or with any stewards, specifically about acting on these CU issues?

Has this been discussed on hr:wp?

A request to hold confirmation votes (requiring 2/3 support) for all hr:wp admins.
Has this been discussed on hr:wp?

Neutral third parties could help set up confirmation votes. Has anyone who is not from hr:wp been specifically approached about organizing such a confirmation vote? (This wouldn't necessarily require steward action; on the other hand, stewards can be effective as neutral third parties.)

A request to hold confirmation votes for a specific set of hr:wp admins.
This seems similar to the desysop vote that was held on hr:wp last year, but with a different threshhold (2/3 support rather than 1/2 support).

Has this been discussed on hr:wp since that vote?

A request to unblock a set of editors who had been blocked.
Has this been developed in more detail - who would be unblocked?

Has this been discussed on hr:wp?

A request to change the content of various pages.
Has this been developed in more detail -- what pages would be involved, and how each would change?

Has this been discussed on hr:wp?

Thank you again for your work to organize this RfC. –SJ talk 10:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity of Portuguese Wikipedia checkusers

Hi. I am here to inform that I am the only active checkuser of Portuguese Wikipedia. There's a total of three checkusers. One of them (Jbribeiro1) just reported that he will be in full Wikipause for 30 days. The other one (Nelson Teixeira) is completely inactive since October.

It is required that at least 2 checkusers remain on a wiki so they can mutually control and confirm their actions. Sadly, it won't be possible there at least for some days.

I am reporting here and leaving any decision to you. Thanks.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 02:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not overly concerned with a 30 day break, as the user still will fit within the definition of active as per the policy, and as a steward if we suspend the rights you can go and do things there anyway for no difference in result. I would think that if the community is concerned that we can suspend the rights for the period of absence, maybe put the information forward there, and let them determine what they would like to occur. Having to come to stewards does put a level impediment into the efficient process, especially with spambots. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Steward elections results

The 2014 Steward elections have ended at 18:00 UTC.

The Election committee, after verifying the votes' conformity to the voting guidelines, is now ready to announce the new stewards:

The Election committee wishes to thank all of the candidates for their time and interest and the voters for the time spent reviewing the candidates and taking part in this important global process.

The results of the 2014 stewards confirmation will be released in the upcoming days.

For the election committee,

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—DerHexer (Talk) 20:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Barras talk 20:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--MF-W 20:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--თოგო ^(D) 20:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]