Stewards' noticeboard

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.
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.

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

Remove French Wikinews and French Wikibooks from GS opt-outEdit

Status: Not done

See wikinews:fr:Wikinews:Salle_café/2021/mai#Enabling_global_sysops_on_this_wiki (for Wikinews) and wikibooks:fr:Wikilivres:Le_Bistro/2021#Enabling_global_sysops_on_this_wiki for Wikibooks. No opposition (or discussion for that matter) to the proposal, and the wiki appears to be quite small as well (Wikinews), while there is support from a 'crat at fr.wikibooks. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

These discussions should stay open for more time. Ruslik (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: How much longer? I ask so that I can wait till then. Leaderboard (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that one month is sufficient. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Think you can do it now? Leaderboard (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is an appropriate reaction to silence, especially given that the post was not written in the language of the project. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

With 15 and 7 admins respectively (5 and 2 active in June), and I know that some are (reasonably) fluent in English, I think that I would agree with 1234qwer1234qwer4's point that silence should not be taken as assent. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4 and Billinghurst: Assuming that was directed at me, what would you suggest instead? Leaderboard (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know about the fluency. My second point was invalid then. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: I am not asking you to do anything, why would you think that? I am not a steward—resigned years ago;, I have no skin in the game beyond opinion. I commented on 1234qwer1234qwer4's observation, and added a little data. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: It seemed from your comment that you disagreed with my view that it is OK to move on with the request, and hence I was asking what I should be doing instead. Leaderboard (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I was agreeing with 1234qwer1234qwer4's PoV. I have a 20c opinion, and can issue zero demands nor instructions in this space. My 20c opinion may or may not be of any value to stewards, I don't know; and they are always welcome to tell me to shut up and piss off. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — billinghurst sDrewth 07:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: ping Leaderboard (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that you should advertise it better. Ruslik (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Or just close it as "no evident consensus for change" — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Well I posted in the village pump (or equivalent) of both wikis. What else do you expect me to do? Both are small wikis after all... Leaderboard (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait for some time. Ruslik (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: It would be nice if you could tell what you meant by "some time" (2 weeks?) - because I can't wait forever to get a change implemented... Leaderboard (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be reasonable. Ruslik (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: OK now? Leaderboard (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: Well, fr.books and fr.news, has one hundred percent consensus, but that's only because I was the one who said yes or no. SHB2000 (talk | contibs | en.wikivoyage | en.wikipedia) 23:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to create a further mess and hence will not argue further, but I won't be agreeing with the bizarre decisions taken here. @SHB2000:, my talk page would be better if you want to discuss further. Leaderboard (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done No clear consensus. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: 100% consensus is not "clear consensus"? I really don't get it. A wiki whose members don't respond should be opted in to GS - I've seen this before. Leaderboard (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That is the call that I would have made when I was a steward. No issue with me maintaining the status quo. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: In that case, what would it take for a small/inactive wiki to be opted-in into GS? Because from yours and Ruslik's comments, it sounds like this would never happen, which makes no sense to me at least. Leaderboard (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you are searching for a problem. It seems that you are fixated on global sysops. Nothing wrong with asking the question of the community, however, after that, let it go. You have your nose buried deep in the issue, and you have your eyes closed. Pull your face out, and think strategically and holistically.

There is a process for inactive sysops, and anything would presumably flow from there. As we did with loss of admin rights for inactivity, setting up a framework that gives clear guidance on expectations on what is required to be in and out of global sysops framework, and the timeframes, is the only true means for managing. The rules that were created in times of exuberance and growth, do need to be modified for times of maturity. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

SRG backlogEdit

There's a lot of requests in SRG that have not been taken any action yet, the oldest of which is almost a month old (16 May). Mario Jump 83! 02:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@MarioJump83: Probably relates to the quality of the requests. Some people jump to requesting blocks when it is not appropriate (for example, dynamic IP addresses, local abuse, very short term abuse), and/or place a big long list of IP addresses. Stewards are responsible for blocking people and fielding the complaints so would typically check such requests by various means and in a thorough, somewhat time-consuming manner. So when the enthusiastic, though not necessarily diligent, place requests based on their limited knowledge it can hinder rather than help the process. [This is not reflecting on all requests there, just some of them. Also noting that I am long not a steward, so I am talking in general rather than knowing exactly where and what is happening in steward-world.] — billinghurst sDrewth 02:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

To me it seems that what is lacking is 1) user education about what is abuse, and what stewards can reasonably do about it. that the template. 2) Modification to the template syructure so that reports that are typically about IPs where the abuse is short term in duration, firstly is more obvious that it is a short term block required, AND autocloses after a day or two, so that that such requests are quietly archived if not actioned. Maybe the ability to set a close date/time in status, or a modified form of status. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

For me, my struggle is the lack of explanation often given or the lack of knowledge about abuse. When either of these two exist, I tend not to process them, though I should decline them (the script we have is not working) just so I can get through the rest of the backlog. It eventually creates a backlog of poorly done requests that are harder to deal with. Anyone placing the "Long term abuse" reason should be explaining more than just that, otherwise it's not worth the post in my opinion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: I would agree, which is why I went through them last week and clerked them at face value, not knowing any CU implications.. I culled those that were expired or those that I considered problematic. I did add notes to many, and highlighted those that I thought should be undertaken, and with a term recommendation. It would be good if you good review those and process those with which you agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2021‎ (UTC)

Ahh I hadn't seen that in my quick look today. I will go take a look as I have time. I also was speaking more to the accounts side, as I haven't nailed down the tools for IPs just yet, but will look either way. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment Stewards either need to block the IPs or close the section, or work with the community to get the reporting in the SRG to a standard that assists them.

You are elected to manage, so may be it is time that you did it. I didn't realise you got to pick and choose the nice duties.
If stewards don't want to do it then why have you put your hand up to do these tasks? Would those stewards who nominated themselves with the abuse issue as a reason living up to their mandate?
If there are problems with the submissions then who has the responsibility to improve the quality of the submissions? Is it the community or the stewards. All I am seeing is a lack of leadership and a disregard for the community.
If the only accountability for stewards is an election, and they don't communicate or make themselves accountable during the year, then that is truly sad.

That may be harsh, though I think that I am qualified to make the assessment. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Crosswiki Spam (Frank Mortenson & Edwin Symonowicz)Edit

I recently received a request to delete crosswiki spam. The spammer came back the next day, so I looked at the troll and found that it seems to be an LTA. I have found an old SRM request (here) and some socks: en:Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Birdsflyinghigh123, Special:CentralAuth/Gaingroo and many IPs. Has anyone observed this troll yet? Should we add these names to the title blacklist?--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 11:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/286 A new abusefilter for this Troll--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Remove English Wikiquote from GS opt-outEdit

Status: Not done

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump#Removing_Wikiquote_from_Global_Sysops_opt-out_list

As of writing, excluding myself, I see three clear supports, a weak oppose and a standard oppose. I will leave it to you to decide whether this represents sufficient consensus. Leaderboard (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done No clear consensus. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop abuse and violence in Fawiki by checkusersEdit

Hi Dear.

I sent a complaint to OC and reported that my account " shahramrashidi" has been blocked and banned in Fawiki as nominating Sockpuppetry, without any evidence. Even the user checking has not been requested by any in check user page. But the checkusers have blocked my account according to doubt only as their declaration. Which policy of WP tell you can block unlimited any user without evidence and with doubt only.

This is the response of OC: "The Commission is responsible for investigating complaints about infringements of the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic personal data policy, the CheckUser policy, and the Oversight policy, on any Wikimedia project. The OC pays close attention to policies and their violations. Regarding the complaint relating to the block of User:Shahramrashidi for sockpuppet, the commission has found no violation of any of the aforementioned policies.

Shahramrashidi was blocked according to the Persian Wikipedia's (fawiki) sockpuppetry policy, which provides that a sockpuppet can be blocked without needing to identify the "sockmaster". The Commission is not an appeals body for blocks. The local community's appeal processes should be used in this case."

How do i tell and prove my account is not sockpuppet and the response of OC is about sockpuppet user only, then when my account is not sockpuppet, this policy is not applicable for my account. I asked OC to check my account is not sockpuppet and check users have abused from their facility and access, but instead of checking my account and their action has replied as a/m.

Also I wrote to stewards but got response as :"The stewards are not superior to fa.wikipedia functionaries. You need to appeal their decision to them. The stewards cannot help you in that case."

I know stewards can check my account for Sockpuppetry and can checj the right use of checkuser in fawiki. Then please check and find their abuse. My account is blocked completly, how can i to appeal in fawiki?

My question is can any check users block and ban any account as sockpuppet even it not to be sockpuppet? Who check this and stop their abuse? My account is not sockpuppet and check users abuse from their access. Please check my account in Fawiki and if my account to be sockpuppet, block me in all wiki projects else stop their abuse. please stop abuse from fawiki. i am ready to provide any document to prove my account is not sockpuppet and there is no any supervision on fawiki check users. Please return credit to fawikiShahramrashidi (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: Farsi Wikipedia is an self-contained and self-regulated wiki that has its rules and processes. Stewards and global rights holders cannot help you. You will need to follow any information that is at that wiki relating to blocks. Nothing can be done at this page. This is not the place for your questions. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said on Jimbo's talk page. I didn't mean the Stewards could override the local CUs. I meant that an FA speaking Steward might be willing to help you understand why the fa.wiki CUs think you are a sockpuppet and how you might be able to prove you aren't. That's because the local CU could, if they were willing, discuss the private data with the Steward and that they, as a neutral party, might be able to defuse the situation from your belief that this is "abuse". However, for this to happen you'd have to persuade both parties to help out and that would start with you moderating your tone and not accusing people of bad faith. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst @QuiteUnusual The block was double checked by another CU and endorsed. The user is clearly a sock for numerous reasons we can't disclose publicly and has been causing issues like so much disruptive editing in AN that we had to protect it. Just ignore this if you ask me. Amir (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@billinghurst, @QuiteUnusual Ok. Then Let us check it. Ladsgroup has blocked me without any evidance and without any request in Sockpuppet investigations page. I asked him, to provide any evidence without confidence problem for public. I haven't problem with this and even i am ready to give my real information, but he never gave it. The another CU checked and told there is no technical evidence and it my be edition like to others. I asked them to provide any similar edition if there is any. Even asked to define main account if my account is sock but they never had any. Currently, after complaint to OC they asked me to appeal in Fa.wiki, But as there is no arbitration committee in Fawiki, I asked in AN by IP and my sign (because my account is blocked and haven't another account)from community and managers to check all documents to be proved i am not sock and to check action of CU for blocking to prove his abuse. He closed my note on AN while he is involved manager. I wrote again he in involved and cant close my request but he closed again and mentioned i am banned user (He declared me am banned, but as policy one can't ban any user alone and community can ban a user), Then he limited edition in AN 2days ago to prevent me from note about him and this is not related to his action in some month ago. His actions is against some of policy and he do'te let anyone to check it. Also as the CU access peridod in fawiki is unlimited anyone can't supervise on CU, Then he abuses this access and i ask his action to be checked. I never had any disruptive editing and if they have any evidence, i ask them to provide. Please check the closed accounts in fawiki and compare with request for check user in Sockpuppet investigations then it will be wonderful for you. Also for your information, as i know and checked there is no perisan language steward in stewards list to solve this.Shahramrashidi (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)