Stewards' noticeboard

←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 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.

Stewards

• About stewards
• Elections
• History

Requests

• CheckUser information
• Global blocks & locks
• Global rights
• Local bot rights
• Local rights
• Account renaming
• Miscellaneous requests
• URL blacklisting
• Title/username blacklisting

For stewards

• Help
• Policies
• Bugs
• Mailing list
• #wikimedia-stewards^connect

Noticeboards

• Access policy noticeboard
• Stewards' noticeboard

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

Close Requests for comment/Global ban requirements

Requests for comment/Global ban requirements is overdue for a closure. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 16:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Bump to prevent archival. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 05:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

GIPBE

Good day stewards. Was taking a look at the users with GIPBE and found that some of them were blocked for socking (e.g. AndreaGotts, Svpnikhil, ThePhantom65, etc.), some never made any edits (e.g. Sushree Andia), and some not editing for an extended period of time (e.g. Digimarks).

My question is that how often does the users in the GIPBE group gets reviewed and should there be an activity requirement and/or criteria for the users in said group? --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I see, there is no community policy for activity related to this flag (Global IP block exemptions). Gaining a single local block isn't necessarily a revocation bright line. I'd be fine with clean ups of very lenghty inactivity (perhaps 3+ years globally inactive) - and think that would be fairly uncontroversial. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think removing some of the very inactive ones makes sense (I seem to remember us doing that waaay back in the day, there was a list on stewwiki and everything). Blocks aren't necessarily a cause for removal as xaos mentioned, but I wouldn't object to reviewing some of those as well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Ajraddatz: Is 3 years of inactivity a good time for a review? --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 05:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

2 or even one year of inactivity should be enough. Leaderboard (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I would  Support 1,5-2 years. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 07:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, see Talk:Global IP block exemptions#Inactivity. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

These seems to be consensus to close and implement this now. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 05:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

New zhwiki SPI Clerk Candidate: Aqurs1

Hello all again,

I would like to present a new Chinese Wikipedia SPI clerk candidate Aqurs1. Per local consensus, all new clerk candidates after obtaining local support must be submitted to Steward Noticeboard for review to provide stewards an opportunity to evaluate the candidate. If no stewards have shown opposition over the next 7 days, the candidate Aqurs1 will assume position as a local SPI clerk.

I would like to personally invite some stewards who have been actively assisting zhwiki SPI requests on SRCU @XXBlackburnXx, Sotiale, AramilFeraxa, and EPIC:, but for the others, please don't hesitate to share your thoughts as well! $\int$（☎） 18:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

No opposition from my part. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The Iranian Wikimedians User Group results

Dear @User:Yahya and @User:علاء

Hi

The Iranian Wikimedians User Group Election has been held. Given the willingness to cooperate, hold, and review the results in this message, please proceed to review the results.

With the best regards.

Hootan Dolati Hootandolati (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hootandolati I assume you meant to write 'UG election' instead of 'ArbCom election'? What were the minimum voting requirements? ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

yes. I'm so sorry.

Iranian Wikimedians User Group is correct.

The winners of the elections have more votes in favor, and there is no minimum vote, but the person who has obtained the most votes according to this formula:

The voting will be conducted publicly, and participants are only allowed to vote either in favor or against each candidate. The top five candidates who receive the highest number of votes will be elected as members of the Board of Trustees. To be eligible for election, candidates must receive at least 60% of the votes, calculated as the number of favorable votes divided by the total number of favorable and opposing votes. After this threshold is met, candidates will be ranked based on the difference between favorable and opposing votes, and the top five will be elected to the Board. In the event of a tie in the vote difference between the fifth and sixth candidates, the one with the higher number of favorable votes will be selected.

• according this page: Hootandolati (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I found my answer here. @Hootandolati My review is complete, and everything looks good to me. Do we need to sign anywhere to confirm the voting result? ~ Yahya (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yahya, Where and how did you review the results? I find things unclear to me --Alaa :)..! 19:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @User:علاء. What is unclear? Can I explain? Hootandolati (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @User:Yahya

please sing in this page .

Write the confirmation at the bottom of the table where the three signatures are placed.

Where the committee has signed.

Hootandolati

UnrivaledIr

Amin Khuzayma

Thanks Hootandolati (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Allowing temp account IP viewers to enable 2FA

Stewards,

On behalf of the WMF, could you please add the “oathauth-enable” right to the global-temporary-account-viewer group, so that they are consistently able to turn on two-factor authentication in their account?

This will not enforce that 2FA is required for those accounts, but will make it available to those users for them to set up on their own. This is all-upside for user security, and seems unlikely to result in a volume that has an appreciable impact on recovery processes. EMill-WMF (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@EMill-WMF is the on-wiki documentation out of date on Global temporary account IP viewers? It appears this should only be assigned to user that are in groups that already have 2FA enrollment enabled. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmm I enabled it but good question. Will this group be added to anyone who shouldn't already have 2fa enabled? – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

No objection to this at all, just seemed superfluous. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz @Xaosflux The proximate cause of this request was from this suggestion, which was around making it possible for people who only had 2FA enrollment enabled through local group membership, to enable it from any wiki and not just the wiki they had extended rights on. EMill-WMF (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, again not a problem - was mostly seeing if this was a "do x (because of y that I know about, and assume that you know about - but you don't know about it....)" sort of thing!

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)