Stewards' noticeboard

Stewards Stewards' noticeboard Archives
Shortcut:
SN
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.
Stewards
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
For stewards
Noticeboards
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.

MediaWiki\Revision\RevisionAccessExceptionEdit

Hi someone. I'm not sure if it's a bug. I've got several complaint from local Malay Wikipedians that they were unable to move some pages and the error notice appear just like ones in the section which was: "MediaWiki\Revision\RevisionAccessException" and some numbers. The example page is ms:Bones. We tried to move to "Bones (siri TV)" but we weren't unable to do so. Can someone help to check and if it's a bug, would be great if someone can help to create a task in Phabricator and ping me. Thank you! CyberTroopers (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@CyberTroopers: This looks like a bug. You can create a phab task. Add your problem, including the error message shown and also add the steps to reproduce it (see mw:How to report a bug#Reporting a new bug or feature request). Regards --Zabe (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@CyberTroopers See phab:T279832. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not catch this one --Zabe (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@CyberTroopers For the record, the number is a request ID, a number that uniquely identifies the request that caused the error. Wikimedia system administrators can use request IDs to locate the bug's backtrace, which is extremely helpful when debuging. If you ever see a similar behavior, definitely include that ID in your report, it will be appreciated. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@User:Martin Urbanec, @User:Zabe Thank you guys for helping! As per my understanding, the bugs is still under investigation and it might related to upper/lower case something in the script? I hope you guys will figure out the solutions and I'll help whatever I could. As for now, I think we'll use {{R from move}} to move the failed page. CyberTroopers (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's under active investigation. We're still not sure what exactly caused this bug, but we're working on it. It can be related to literally anyting. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of special:contact/stewards with email blocked IP addresses?Edit

Hi. The applied block message for numbers of IP ranges is to contact stewards at special:contact/stewards, yet I am seeing email is blocked at the same time. Have stewards confirmed that email can be sent to the contact address when an IP range is blocked as it seems counter-intuitive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Email blocked users cannot use steward contact page
Hello, thanks for bringing this up, @Billinghurst. I just tried it from my own Azure-hosted workstation (you can find recording of my screen in the attached video file). I indeed was not able to use special:Contact/stewards, but I was once I changed the block setting to allow emailing.
In another words, as long as an IP address is blocked with "Email disabled", such IP cannot use special:Contact/stewards (as it is an emailing service). When email is allowed, the IP can freely use special:Contact/stewards (and if the block affects logged-in users, also special:Emailuser).
In my opinion, this behavior of MediaWiki makes sense, as the contact page indeed does email people. The issue is that the global blocking interface does not allow me to control how the local block will look like, it automatically disallows email.
I will ask stewards via the maillist to discuss changing this behavior, and if they agree, I'll create a Phabricator task to get this done.
Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: Thanks, if you check the steward's email archives you can probably find an email about the coding of the tied together block functionality, as we discussed it about 2014 (?), and it was circa the time that we created that contact methodology. Check with Trijnstel she remembers all those things!  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst The global blocking interface (I just uploaded a screenshot of it to Commons, so you can see it as well) now allows stewards to disable/enable local (Meta) talk page access per-block, which wasn't the case before (the patch for it got merged during my steward tenure). It shouldn't be hard to add a similar checkbox for email stuff, which sounds to fix this issue, right? Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: I can't see such an option on the beta cluster. Leaderboard (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: please notice that he is changing the local meta block, not the global one. --Zabe (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zabe: I'm referring to the screenshot, which shows the global blocking interface, unless I am missing something. Leaderboard (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: sorry, I was confused. But this is odd, when I look at the page the option shows up, but just short (see File:GlobalBlock Beta.webm). --Zabe (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove en.wikiquote from GS opt-out listEdit

See here; no opposition to the proposal. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please wait - there is also no explicit support for the proposal and discussion is still is progress --DannyS712 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see Danny's response - while Martin Urbanec previously communicated that it would be OK to pass with BD2412's support, I'm happy to wait if needed. Leaderboard (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Stewards as ambassadors (or thoughts on IA granting change)Edit

I'm of the mind that project security is a legitimate foundation function and so it's with-in the foundation's purview to make a change in how/who can grant IA. I think consulting with the stewards is also a reasonable enough step though also consulting with the communities whose crats are impacted seems like a no brainer. I'm curious why they didn't. That said, if Stewards are going to be consulted in cases like this I wish they would have supplied the "Maybe you should talk to the communities" feedback of the type now being suggested in the phab ticket. I'm guessing that Stewards gave feedback more in the realm of "we have capacity to do this work" rather than taking on the role of ambassador. Perhaps Stewards didn't sign up to be ambassadors but if the foundation is going to treat them as such they either need to no do it (i.e. not provide feedback in situations like this) or to make an attempt to represent the projects on whose behalf they're speaking. Or perhaps my guess about what kind of feedback offered is wrong. However, as someone who serves as an ambassador to the foundation for a particular project (as a sitting Arb on enwiki) I do think this is a valuable role for stewards to play and I hope that they see it as a fit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Stewards aren't a GovCom. In hindsight it wasn't okay with the whole global renamers debacle and it's not okay now. (Happy to elaborate what I mean more offwiki, I don't remember how much of this aired onwiki versus offwiki). --Rschen7754 18:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Stewards will always fill the strange role at the top of the global hierarchy communicating between the Foundation and the community. Because they are volunteers, not necessarily selected for that type of role, and not necessarily interested in that role there will always be some cases that go well (such as global renaming, which I think was one of the best examples of top-down leadership that led to a good change) and some that don't.
More fundamentally, though, the Wikimedia community has repeatedly demonstrated that it hates the status quo and hates any attempt to change it. There's no point in opining about whether the role of stewards is good or bad; roles on Wikimedia evolve through necessity and common practice and will continue to do so, and no attempt at top down or bottom up policy formation is going to change that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you're forgetting the initial global renamer elections, SE2015, and all the events that led up to it (and that I'm sure continued after I resigned). Communication is okay, but in this case stewards should have made more clear, presumably, that they were not sufficient for ticking off the "we consulted the community" checkbox. --Rschen7754 18:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you point to anything in particular? Candidates in SE2015 for whom there were significant issues related to global renaming? Evidence of widespread community discontent with the initial elections/process? I remember some roadbumps, for sure, including many that were internal to the stewards group. But I also remember the establishment of a system that still seems to be working now, and giving general hints towards insufficient consultations doesn't help me remember any better. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
As anything discussed on stewards-l is confidential, no, I can't. Which is the problem: consequential policy decisions like this need to be made onwiki, because of consensus and transparency - not on a private mailing list or in private discussions with the WMF. And while there are reasons to communicate and discuss things with WMF, stewards are not elected to make policy decisions like this. If we think they should, maybe we need to change the Stewards policy. --Rschen7754 00:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  Comment Stewards implement consensus, just like anywhere else. Either based on consensus policy; or based on process that allows the development of consensus. They don't make policy, though they may propose policy. They do make operating processes based on community consensus, be it from discussion or agreed policy. It has been my experience that they have been a source of consultation for their area of knowledge and operations (like any other group); they have been confidentially informed of situations and implementations where it impacts their duties. They are stakeholders, and participate in stakeholder management.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: Background? Seems you are starting a conversation halfway through. Or has this change just been bugging you to now have an opinion on IA and stewards?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)