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.

Rollback

For Infomation: I have proposed a change to the summary of rollbacks to avoid automatic distribution of harassment etc. in the future. Comments are welcome. phabricator:T368876 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to split Steward requests/Global

Previously discussed here: Talk:Steward_requests/Global/Archives/2024#The_state_of_SRG and Talk:Steward_requests/Global/Archives/2023#Template_bug?. After deployments of global account blocks, I propose to split this page as following (names are provisional):

Uncontroversial requests:

• Steward requests/Global locks: cases that global locks are still required, including: (1) WMF or community global banned users and their socks; (2) compromised users; (3) deceased users; (4) users with improper name that global hiding is required.
• Steward requests/Open proxy: requests to globally block open proxies.
• Steward requests/Vandalism report: requests to globally block vandalism-only or spam-only users (including accounts and IPs), ongoing cross-wiki disruptive users (including accounts and IPs), and sock puppets with cross-wiki activities. Users should provide diffs or links that justifies blocking.

Potentially controversial requests:

• Steward requests/User problems: Any user problems that does not fit the three above cases, or is otherwise controversial. A bot may automatically move any requests on the first three pages to this page after one week, to reduce the backlog of above pages.

GZWDer (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you expect this will improve? The SRG backlog has significantly decreased and this looks like it is going to be complicating things (e.g. someone report a vandalism IP range, but then find that it is a proxy so lets move the discussion to the other page). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Xaos here. I'm fine with potentially creating a page for potentially controversial requests (since we currently have no real dedicated page for such reports, meaning they are currently going to SRG instead, where they don't really belong either), but I am not of the opinion that we need four separate pages for global block/lock reports - it's really too confusing and I don't find it necessary in the current state. Like mentioned the SR backlogs are no longer as large as they were at the time of the linked discussions and I also find that they have significantly decreased to the point where they are now within control of the steward team; I and other stewards have monitored steward requests pages daily, most requests are relatively quickly handled and I wouldn't say the backlogs are so large to the point where stewards can't handle them in the current state.

I would also consider splitting SRG in the future if the backlogs get completely out of control, but given that since the end of SE2024 they have been mostly low I don't find that SRG is insufficient at the moment. EPIC (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A potential new workflow and page could be for "global account unblock appeals", but I think this is premature right now. The stewards team is currently reviewing workflows for global account blocks, some of which could result in more on-wiki requests that could benefit from a dedicated forum. The day-1 launch of that capability is not expected to cause any immediate change. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a stew here, but I can't see how this will improve things. xaoflux's suggestion for unblock appeals seems reasonable, but splitting a page that doesn't get very long anymore doesn't sound intuitive at all – it'll only cause more confusion, particularly for non-regular Meta users. --SHB2000 (t • c) 13:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Automatic account vanishing

Since deployment of automatic account vanishing there are a large influx of requests to global rename queue. I am afraid such amount of requests may be beyond how community can handle. GZWDer (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We will handle it. Trust us. A09|(pogovor) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We can certainly keep an eye on it, most of them are very easy to do; the vanish queue is now ~77 requests open. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @GZWDer, thank you for the message. The number of incoming requests is indeed higher as of now, but fortunately, this is only the case temporarily. The Automated vanishing system is currently processing requests that accumulated while the automated system was being created (the backlog is about 2 months long). Over half of the accumulated vanishing requests is being automatically approved with no human intervention (only impacts unblocked accounts with no edit history at any Wikimedia project). The automated approval was done to reduce the burden on the community renamers. Once the accumulated backlog clears (which should happen fairly soon), the number of requests will be significantly lower and well within the realm of what the community renamers and stewards can handle in the long term. Best regards, Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note, all "vanish" type requests in the Special:Globalrenamequeue are now clear. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Close Request for RFC

Hello. I think the consensus is obvious in this RFC (6 people thinks this block is wrong and no one thinks this block is right), so can a steward close it? (I came here by the advice of Pppery.) RuzDD (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@RuzDD most people appear to have commented because you pinged them (-> en:WP:Canvassing). And as you've been already told by another steward [1][2] metawiki is not an appeal court and stewards do not have the power to correct individual decisions by local admins.

In case of systemic abuse (meaning large-scale, general abuse instead of single decisions which some users disagree with) the global community can find consensus for stewards to intervene in local projects (one example being Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia), but this requires much broader participation in the RfC and much broader abuse than two block decisions which might or might not be wrong.

We can close the RfC, but given that it doesn't show any systemic issues and just one individual case of users complaining about a block, our only option would be to close it without taking any action. Johannnes89 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing is an enwiki policy, so it should not affect this wiki, am I wrong?

Still, 4 people were commented and said that I should be unblocked without my pings.

I think there is a systemic abuse, but this is not obvious because I was selected a wrong name. Look at my block history. My second block is especially wrong as the sysop was blocked me with the reason that I was uploaded an AI-generated file while it was not AI-generated and there is no evidence to prove it was AI-generated.

Another example of disruptive behaviour (not sysop abuse but disruptive): Look at this edit. This comment is obviously not troll and removing this comment is obviously disruptive, and I think this can be considered as trolling. User:Nanahuatl made more edits like this.

Could I prove that there is a systemic disruptive behaviour with these examples? RuzDD (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Again: Stewards won't overturn this single block and nothing in this RfC discusses (or proves) systemic admin abuse. User:Nanahuatl is not even an admin and this is not the right place to discuss potential abuse.

In order to prove systemic admin abuse you need set up an RfC which demonstrates abusive admin actions ranging over a long time span and affecting many different individual users, not just you / Modern primat. The U4C might be an instance where you can appeal your block to in the future, but this RfC offers no basis for stewards to act, stewards are not a global arbitration committee deciding on individual, local admin actions. --Johannnes89 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done --Johannnes89 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. RuzDD (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Johannnes89 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)