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.
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.

Small wiki audit/Malagasy WiktionaryEdit

The first small wiki audit has been completed, and there has still been zero input from any stewards on the talk page. As there has been some opinion that a small wiki audit is essentially an RFC in a different forum, steward involvement is necessary to bring about a resolution. Metaknowledge (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: What exactly are expecting here? As I see it, Small wiki audit is a proposal, with which some have started and run with. I don't see that it has an official standing within the meta or global framework, so there should be no expectation that stewards are monitoring any of it, let alone acting in one small part of it. What actions do you think that stewards can unilaterally take, under which authority? At this point of time, an RFC is the means for the community to act outside of the clear delineation of existing rules, and in this case the community would direct for stewards and global sysops the ability to intervene within the scope of their ability to act. So as I see it, SWA is an investigative act, a poll there at this stage probably would lead to an informative RFC, that could become normative instruction from the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the audit should report back to the community that it audited. Has this occurred? The formal response should be aimed at whole community, not targeting their admin. That community should be responding with their opinions and how they may implement the changes. Calling out the stewards at this point as a first response to an investigation seems highly irregular and almost punitive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Comment I have done a review, and I am going to cause waves here. However, I am hoping that my background here, and knowledge of auditing in a professional life can give unadulterated assistance. Fortunately I am not running for any position as some of those who have supported the outcome should actually be ashamed of their imposition of their opinions and lack of balance in requiring a viable audit.

  1. Audit process It is my opinion that at this time there is no defined audit process that looks like an actual audit process that can produce fair reports.
  2. Audit report There is no evident procedural fairness with this audit. There is no evidence that there was impartiality of the auditor, nor checks for balance in the audit process. No evidence that preconceived thoughts taken into the audit were checked and challenged. This is a biased, narrow report that was always going to produce the outcome that was pre-determined.
  3. Partiality I see evidence of a pile-on. I am not saying that the wiki in question does not have faults and could not do with significant improvements. I do not say that they most likely have a single point of control and conflict of interest. The thing is that none of that could be seen to be fairly audited and fairly reported. Partiality going in, ruins a good output.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Steward involvement is still requested, in case anyone is unsure. Metaknowledge (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: I don't think that there is scope and requirement for a steward's involvement. Generally they would take requests at one of their request pages. Now you are demanding that they come and do what at an audit #notanaudit talk page. The steward's would have what authority to act from that informal discussion? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.)To achieve what? This sounds like User talk:-revi/FAQ#desysop -like situation to me. — regards, Revi 11:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@-revi: Can you explain how it's similar? (Billinghurst, I think we can leave it to a steward to explain whether or not a steward should be involved.) Metaknowledge (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
You are asking something beyond what we can do. Let's dive in to the details -
  1. There is no policy with that "Small Wiki Audit". We are the executor of the policy and consensus, not an judge or legislature.
  2. Because of 1, there is no policy or consensus requiring participation of a Steward in response to that "audit". We are not going to do something - anything - if the policy (in the absence of policy, established practices) doesn't back us. (You can't claim a process that is not vetted by RfC or similar process as "established practices".)
In short, you need to get a consensus in support for such practices, probably by the form of RfC. (Also, you are yet to explain why we need to be involved.) — regards, Revi 17:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@-revi: There is no policy, but there is consensus. So the challenge is to transform the expression of consensus into one that policy looks favourably upon. So please, tell me in detail what will be needed beyond the start I have made here: Requests for comment/Large-scale errors at Malagasy Wiktionary. (And this is why we needed a steward — I was misinformed by multiple users about what stewards could and couldn't do!) Metaknowledge (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
My take is that there is no consensus to establish "small wiki audit" as a binding process. (Compare Admin activity review (RFC) with this) Given that the page in question is now in RFC page, I think RFC closer will decide the result. (Personally I think this is ultimately up for the local community to decide, and not for Meta RFC.) — regards, Revi 11:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@-revi: I can't find any documentation on when and how RFCs are closed. I'd like to know how I can move forward and avoid this RFC being stuck in limbo for months or years. (As for local decision-making, if you read the report, you will see that there is no local community besides the admin who made the mess in the first place.) Metaknowledge (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
You're looking for Requests for comment/Policy. And if there's nobody to clean up the mess locally, my personal opinion is that the wiki should be closed and sent to Incubator, not just "cleaned up" and left unattended. — regards, Revi 17:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think langcom will agree though to a movement to incubator, my 2 cents only. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my personal opinion - langcom should be MUCH more proactive on closing inactive wikis, but that's just my wish... :P — regards, Revi 17:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
A firm result in an RFC puts the bind on LangCom, and should make them accountable and address it within their operating practice. We all should be operating in a reflective reality space rather than a unidirectional philosophical construct. Possibly should be one of the contingent options of an RFC, as an option B. It addresses a whole heap of the existing issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Need assistance posting a link to RFC in Russian WikipediaEdit

The link to Requests for comment/IP editors are auto-blocked on Russian Wikipedia to be posted on w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Общий please.

My own IP is blocked on ruwiki for attempting to edit without logging in, as described in the RFC. --Crash48 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You can post it yourself as you are registered now. Ruslik (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course not: my account is not exempt from IP blocks. --Crash48 (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Crash48: If it is due to a local IP block, then you will need to resolve that issue with ruwiki. If it is due to a steward's IP block, then please see global IP block exemptions then follow the instruction at SRGP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself WikipediaEdit

Consensus is for oppose, and the recent activity on this RfC is not what it was on June. I think this RfC is a distraction for recent issues like Scots Wikipedia controversy. As such I'm here to get this RfC closed. Thanks. SMB99thx 13:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging MF-Warburg and Vermont. SMB99thx 12:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I have commented on that and on related pages with a specific point of view, so I’m not going to be the one to close it. However, I will note that we don’t determine the validity of closing one RfC by the existence of other, subjectively more important, RfCs. It’s not as though there’s one contiguous community with only one object of attention. There’s dozens of RfCs currently open, and individual editors determine if they want to comment on any of them, and if so which ones they want to participate in. The RfC being open for a while with little activity is a reason to close, but the “distraction” statement would be an incredibly dangerous and misinformed precedent to set. Regardless, an uninvolved admin or stew will get to closing it at some point. Vermont (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think an RFC can be closed for being a "distraction". However, the entire branding project that this was a response to is on hold until March, so I think closing it is a good idea. --Yair rand (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Harassment and admin abuse in WikiquoteEdit

I don't know were to report this but I were been recieving harassment by an user from Australia, TVEBOR and 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35), for a year now. The accounts were banned by ~riley for sockpupetry. Other users that were targeted by this IP have been Peter1 and DawgDeputy. Now the harasser has comeback and UDScott has ban me for revert the block evasions. I reported in the Administrator noticeboard several times that he was doing block evasion (Q:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/036#TVEBOR block evasion and Q:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/036#TBlock evasion by TVEBOR). Also, I reported to UDScott in the past several times, in his talk page I did it in 15 January 2020. And recently during the recent controversy in which admin decided to cherrypick a policy, WQ:Q because he "assumed bad faith" on me. I have a discussion recently on this with Koavf on if I should make a report on that controversy, which I did here. The harassment during the year affected me in all the Wikiprojects in which I participated, I become paranoid and temperamental and I want this to stop but I don't know how so I request assistance to solve the issue. Rupert loup (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Admin abuse??? You have 300 reverts at this day. This is a big Editwar. Why didn't you wait for the IP to be blocked?--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiBayer The IP was blocked after months of harassing, it was only blocked after it created that account TVEBOR because Peter1 told him that he should registered. And the IP changed after minutes, it was never range blocked before the sockpupetry. At first I discussed it in talk pages and in the noticeboard. Admins never took action more than block the page were the IP was participating. I lost interest in discuss after admins ignore us and our reports, after that I just came accustomed to revert it on spot. There is no much discussion in WQ in general and admins usually ignore the issue. ~riley was who tried to bring the 3 revert policy in WQ, a blow of fresh air. But I think that he gave up after a month or two. I didn't see admins discussing the issue after that. I tried to bring the issue on warring recently. Nobody cared. That is how discussion is in WQ. Rupert loup (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Also the IP was reported and still was not blocked, only I was blocked for revert a block evasion. You don't see UDScott or any admin discussing the issue there, as is the norm. So I think that responds the question on why I didn't wait for the IP to be blocked. Rupert loup (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiBayer I'm not trying to sound rude, that's the best that I can express myself right now given my frustration. Rupert loup (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rupert loup: This is a matter for English Wikiquote, and them alone. They are a fully formed community and able to resolve issues. Not certain why you think anywhere else should be intervening in these issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
billinghurst The IP's harassment has been leaked to Wikipedia also, and the IP is also back there. As I said this affected my work and my behavior in all the Wikiprojects. Rupert loup (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Work with the local communities, there is nothing that stewards or global sysops can do to resolve your local issues. Our roles are not to be involved with local content issues. Your communities have the tools to manage these as they see them to be managed, and to escalate to stewards as they need to do so. Please read Stewards and Global sysops and tell us where it gives us any role in what you are mentioning or authority to intervene.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Spoiler alert: "Stewards are also not arbitrators or mediators; to resolve a conflict on a small project, please attempt local resolution, and file a request for comment on Meta-Wiki if local resolution cannot be achieved." Your wiki is not small but still, we are not your arbitrator. We can't solve your problem. — regards, Revi 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What a request for comment will do to stop the harassment by the IP? Rupert loup (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You asking here wouldn't stop it either, because we are not going to do anything for you here. — regards, Revi 21:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
-revi and billinghurst: You already did something for me, thank you for your help. I tried to maintain WQ neutral, balanced and accurate but as you said if the community don't care I can do much about it. I'm not into modern politics, they bore me to death, I tried to balance the different POVs to gave them fair and accurate representation in WQ but with the amount of people (from all the political spectrum) adding random content from what it seems social media and blogs they have made the project in a troll magnet and full of toxicity. What I really hold dearly are the policies of WQ, those are which shaped my personal POV, and it breaks my heart that they are disregarded as they are there. I bet that this will get worse when the different POVs will start collide in the next months, with all the World political context and such. I have a strong feeling that it will happen. If that is the direction that the community want for the project so be it. I already stopped having fun long ago there so this is what I need to let it go. Rupert loup (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Everything concerning the IP must be clarified on local projekt. Please don't feed trolls with editwars. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬

Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian WikipediaEdit

Link: Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia

After acquainting myself with this case over the last couple of months, I think there is a path forward through desysopping/blocking some key problematic editors, reversing some other blocks, and developing a guidance document for dealing with Croatian history that could be enforced through request to GS or stewards if local admins are unwilling to enforce (GS if it is decided to make hrwiki a gs wiki for the purposes of enforcing the guideline, but that might be outside of their scope).

My question for stewards is this: how clear-cut does this need to be for you to feel comfortable acting? I'm going to try to limit the nonsense that has plagued the RfC to date by introducing some strict guidance on how the final discussion is conducted, and focus more on getting the global community's input. I know there aren't many incentives for stewards to actually implement these sort of things, but I think this is a significant and ongoing issue, and that a solution (or at least action in the right direction) is possible. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)