Open main menu
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 page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
For stewards
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.


Add to GS wikisetEdit

I don't know why am.wp is not on GS wikiset, this wiki only have 2 admins and none of them are active see here, please add am.wp to the GS wikiset. Thank you.--AldNonymousBicara? 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aldnonymous: Their community previously voted to opt out of global sysop: [1]. Note the original community discussion is now at here, instead of the one shown at meta. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 13:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Uh... This is terrible... What can we do now? We can no longer delete, block vandals and spammers, while there are no active local sysop to perform it.--AldNonymousBicara? 13:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The person who made that request, formerly their most active admin, is now globally banned. I believe this warrants reconsideration. Vermont (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Process and criteria for readding wikis to GS needs to be revisited. A minimum criteria should exist to be excluded and a threshold above which wikis need to not fall below should be established. For example can remove from GS restrictions when have had 5 active administrators for a period longer than 12 months; will return to being a GS wiki when they fall below 2 active admins in a 12 month period. (and this just an example of what it may be, not my recommendation of what it should be).  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with billinghurst suggestion but with minor tweak, the said wiki if they have >= 3 sysops, regardless if active or not, should be on GS wikiset.--AldNonymousBicara? 13:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The GS page says global sysops may use their permissions if fewer than ten administrators exist on the wiki or fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months. I think the minimum criteria can be made in which if an opted out wiki comes to meet any of these criterias (i.e falls under GS scope) they can be Opted-in (readded to the GS set). Thanks--BRP ever 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that you have ignored the sentence immediately below these criteria: "Projects may opt-in or opt-out at their own discretion if they obtain local consensus." Using your approach would essentially mean to no longer allow opt-outs based on community decision, a rather toxic way to proceed if you ask me. Also, I would be extremely cautious to impose GS access on this wiki again without consultation, just shortly after banning their most active contributor "from the outside". --Vogone (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Then, what should we do? Right now I have no better idea than what I already gave...--AldNonymousBicara? 14:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Initiating a conversation would be a logical first step, inviting users who are or used to be active in the not-too-distant past. Urgent admin actions can be performed by stewards, no need to rush for a GS opt-in here without first having that conversation. --Vogone (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Setting a minimum criteria will mean not allowing opt-outs until they meet the criteria. I think that sentence needs to be changed if we are going to set a minimum criteria here, unless there are other ways to deal with this.--BRP ever 15:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I am lost here. If they no longer meet that GS opt-in criteria they will be opted-out, unless there is a community decision to the contrary (like there was for a few years on Wikidata). At least that is what has been the procedure in the past. --Vogone (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so we should start a local notification to ask for consensus for adding them back to the GS wikiset?--AldnonymousBicara? 15:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd say yes, that's the best way forward at this point. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Notification sent. I'll wait for response.--AldnonymousBicara? 16:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand the problems a small wiki with no truly active admins poses but I have to really agree with Vogone here, particularly just a few months after getting their most consistently active sysop globally banned. The GS role on some wikis is already seen as overstepping and while I'm not sure how to deal with this, I don't think this is the best way. I do however think we need to specify some GS rules a little better and we are probably due for an RFC about activity on small wikis (as in whether there is any consensus to broaden GS scope per what Billinghurst said.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm also going through the list of Wikipedia's to see which small wikis would be effected by the change that Billinghurst suggested as I suspect a handful of the smaller, but active ones that aren't opted in probably will oppose this. Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  Comment WHOA! My comment was about thresholds, and how they could be used; and I put examples (not proposed measures) to explain what I was meaning. As we did with AAR this would need some solid thinking, and a proposal to update policy as we need to mature to reflect where we are in 2019.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my response was more directed toward the original request but I combined it with my curiosity about what could be impacted by your proposal, having received admonishment for acting on some of the sister projects to those listed but within GS scope. Praxidicae (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's a list I made of the projects that would/could be impacted by the proposal suggested above. I did it quickly and I discounted any bots in my total count, so for example if xyzwiki has 4 sysops, 1 botsysop, I left it at 4 sysops in the first column. Second column means edits in the last month, not 30 days (so just April) and indicates the number of total admins who made any edits in that month. Next is year and that's the same, so if 2 sysops out of the four made any actions between 1/1/19 and today, it would indicate 2 and so forth. Praxidicae (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Praxidicae here, we're probably due for an RfC on this topic. We have to be careful to be considerate of a community decision, but we do have broader concerns, as well. Waggie (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The GS policy and its enforcement is a complete mess.

  • We don't even have a complete list of projects that have opted out or opted in, besides the logs on the wikiset and various requests to stewards.
  • The < 10 admins total part has never really been enforced after the 2010 setup of the group, and especially has not after AAR has pushed several projects below the 10 admins limit.
  • I am not aware of any regular maintenance to make sure that when a project falls below 3 active admins (as defined in the GS policy) that it gets added to the group. I know I did some checks when I was a steward and even afterward but I don't know that other checks are taking place. Even with those checks I was very generous and considered any admin who edited at all to be "active" even though the GS policy is much stricter.
  • Maintenance to check if projects become more active than the GS thresholds is even more rare. I've never checked that.
  • What happens when a project opts out, but all the admins leave or go inactive for whatever reason? (There is a similar issue with AAR).
  • It has been GS tradition to defer to local admins in non-emergency situations... unless the project has specifically opted in or is generally relaxed about this kind of thing (but again, how would a new GS know this?) And even then, when I was a new GS I had to be told this and it isn't codified anywhere. Even still, I don't think all GS are following this. --Rschen7754 00:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Rschen7754 You've summed up a lot of what I personally have found confusing about the GS scope (particularly the 10 admin thing, though rarely have I come across a wiki that has 10 admins that have almost none active, exception being wikis that have admin bots, I don't count their activity.) I also view edits as active for the purpose of me performing any administrative function there but again, most cases I've come across where it was opted-in and slightly outside of scope of 3 active admins, at least one had recent edits and log actions, so I guess it varies. I also agree about deferring to local admins and I've certainly run across issues where I performed an action that was well within GS scope (2 admins, excluding a bot) and almost no recent log actions or edits from either but I got an earful (screen full?) after performing a block on a blatant vandal. As far as checks go, I was thinking about working on a query to look at activity for opted-out projects where 10 or fewer admins have been active in the last year and then we can look from there. Yesterday when I created the list I posted above, I came across several that were opted out but had 4-8 admins who hadn't had an action or and edit since 2014-16 (some cases, there were no actions for a handful since 2009!!!) Basically tl;dr for me as a GS, I try not to take action in non-emergency situations where it can even be remotely construed as an active community (with administration, dinwiki is a good example of a handful of active editors but no sysops.) I also think Billinghurst's proposal has merit for activity but I don't know a good way to go about enacting it in such a way that wouldn't feel like forcing that community into opt-in. Praxidicae (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Some things that have changed since placement of operational practices: spambots, and their systemic abuse; global SUL, and account amalgamations, and the ease of xwiki vandalism; global abusefilters, and who can implement them; split of admin and IA practices; global meta user page; the bots that operate; the hosting of bots at wmflabs; merging and closing of wikis; CentralAuth. So asking today's GS to act in the same way as in 2009 would be denying the evolution of tools, and practices.

Let us get an RFC in place to identify what has changed that effects how global sysops operate and look to what practices should exist into the future, and how that operates. Part of the conversation should focus on what constitutes a GS-wiki, and how they pop in and out of scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  Comment global sysops page is essentially a page that reflects the wikis in 2009 and how they operated way back then, and the role is undertaken by a set of individuals without coordinated interaction. The list of 98 wikis that are in and out of the GS system are listed at Special:WikiSets/7.

I don't think that the principle of the GS role has changed, though I think that the operating environment of the wikis has modified, It is a time for a good review of what the role is to achieve, what the wikis require from the role, and some suitable guidance for criteria for wikis opting out, and the basis for when they fall back in.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Who should we go to for all these deletion requests? Vermont (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Stewards can still do deletions (or any action like this on a non-GS wiki with no active admins). --Rschen7754 05:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I would also add that you don't need to go to anyone. This is a wiki that has made a decision, and if they retain rubbish that is their problem, not yours or ours. We offer a service, not a compulsion. Like some discussions about notability, deletion discussions, etc.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

30 days and no objections for amwiki. Maybe it can be readded to the GS set? @Aldnonymous: --Rschen7754 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Rather than no objections, the community seems... dormant... or non existent, though I do agree, with this it's should be fine to be added to GS wikiset.--AldnonymousBicara? 04:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, nobody has been informed about that section, no wonder nobody replies. That might even happen on a non-dormant small wiki. I disagree with the idea of overridig a community consensus with a "silent consensus" initiated by an external, though. It is even doubtful whether this post can be interpreted as such a "silent consensus" at all, since it was formulated as a mere recommendation to the community. Ignoring a recommendation to initiate a decision making process does not indicate a willingness to let others make the decision for you. --Vogone (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
But I don't know who is actually active and who is not... Urgh, I give up, probably this is what Billinghurst said... I'm offering service, not compulsion.--AldnonymousBicara? 15:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe try pinging both admins and maybe a few active users? Otherwise we will have to wait until AAR, and when they have no active admins they will have to be put into the GS group. --Rschen7754 03:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
This debate seems a little on the silly side. There are no active admins on amwiki. Let's add it to the gs wikiset, since that's what it is made for. I don't particularly care about some local consensus from years ago when the situation was different. If it turns out that there is a local userbase who doesn't like having GSes deleting vandalism then they can get another consensus. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
+1 --Rschen7754 01:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
-1, sorry. If they voted to opt-out the decision should be respected until a new consensus is reached locally. This is what was agreed in the past with wikis that explicitly voted to opt-out from the GS program. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
If you/others want to prevent GSes from helping then I won't interfere. But I think we can exercise a little bit more proactive judgment than assuming that a consensus of a few people still applies when those few people are banned or otherwise not there. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
-0.3. While it might be worthwhile to bring it to GS set but consensus need to be respected. It may be stale but I feel that we need to respect it or bring the conversation locally. From a small wiki, I know how hard is to have consensus, some proposals stay there for 4-5 months. On the other hand, I still feel that this spree needs more help. Let's wait for AAR will be better and less intimidating. That'll show they are completely unable to managed locally. --Cohaf (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
+1 I agree with Ajraddatz deleted comment, it's absurd if the rules/regulation/consensus preventing us doing the right things. There are reason why wikipedia have 'Ignore All Rules', this consensus preventing us to solve spam and vandalism, why do we have to respect broken rules/consensus like this?--AldnonymousBicara? 03:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
For me, I still value that local consensus not be overriden by global ones, given my experiences in projects. However, I do agree that if there's a time where a global IAR is to be used, this will be a good time but I hope it will be the last resort rather than the first (which is to get whatsoever little community locally to change their consensus within a decent timeframe). --Cohaf (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Section break #1Edit

(I couldn't come with a better title) I suggest that this time we send amwiki a message like those we use to propose the implementation of the bot policy, give them two weeks or one month and see if anyone replies. I agree Aldnonymous' message looks more like a suggestion than a notice that the wiki could be added to the wikiset if there's no reply at all from them. But I agree, the wiki seems to be "communityless" a.t.m. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: I assume you mean GS? --Rschen7754 18:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Yup. I mean proposing amwiki with a similarly-worded message as those we use to propose the implementation of the bot policy. Sorry if I was not clear. The BP boilerplate message explicitly states that it is a proposal and that it'll be included if there's no reply or no opposition in two weeks (although given the 'dead' status of the wiki I'd say we can wait for a month). Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess, though I am not sure that being more explicit about implementing the outcome after a set time really changes anything from the previous message that was left. --Rschen7754 00:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, hopefully the message can be written in am. I know this will be hard. If there's no one caring then it seems fine, at least we won't be accused of encroaching. --Cohaf (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
At this point I would agree with anything, there are other few small wikis that's not on GS wikiset with inactive local admins. Maybe we could set a precedent for this and make this as a norm, but on the other hand, I feel this a little bit forced. I am in a moral dilemma right now. One between practicality and rules+regulation from consensus.--AldnonymousBicara? 03:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment the rules of pre-2010 are capable of being revised in line with modern circumstance. We didn't have the proliferation of spambots, and the general changes that have taken place with SUL, accounts, and the development of communities. The rules simply need to be tweaked to allow action where there is inaction, and to reflect to needs that exist today that didn't exist then. GS are not about to participate in troublesome activities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I am strongly in support of either setting a precedence here or rather doing a minor RFC to alter the inclusion criteria of wiki to GS wikiset. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hgetnet: You edited two days ago, what do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Related issue with cswikisourceEdit

At present, cswikisource, with 3 human admins, is not a gs-wiki. However, none of them are active on that wiki and the local deletion category is severely backlogged. Is there anything we can do? Vermont (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

-jkb- at least has been active recently, you could try pinging them. Might also be worth starting a local discussion to see if they'd be OK with gs helping out. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Closing azwiki RfCEdit

The azwiki RfC is now eligible for closure. An uninvolved steward should close the discussion. --QEDK (talkenwiki) 09:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Somebody do this please, it's one of the easiest closures. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is on the stewards-l table. — regards, Revi 15:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@-revi:, I am so sorry, but what is stewards-l table mean? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Stewards are internally discussing it. — regards, Revi 10:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It evades my mind, as to what precisely needs to be discussed but it's above my pay-scale and I will let you bother with that, as long as the job gets eventually done within a week or so. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not going to decide when this will be done. That is indeed outside your pay-scale including when this will be done. — regards, Revi 16:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Revi, are you aware that above my payscale is an idiom often used to refer to something beyond one's skills or ability without any real-life-reference to one's pay? Over en, we often say something like:- Hey, me thinks that the user was well-meaning and after all, did not misuse his socks. But it involves CU data, which's above my pay-scale. So, can't say much and you need to contact a CU ....
Your response is quite hostile, to be mild. And, my point of including a time-span was the fact that RFCs over Meta tend to be open for an eternity or so:-) Apologies, if anything above, offended you. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Please remember this is not English Wikipedia and one's knowledge about English idioms might differ. That being said, IMO, you still have no right to declare a deadline when this should be done. Statement like "as long as the job gets eventually done within a week or so" is declaring a deadline, which is not something you are entitled to.
About the discussion - I don't think I can publish what is being discussed, but those who are interested in it is discussing it and will probably come up with edits on Meta. — regards, Revi 18:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
You need to assume good faith, something which is not limited to en-wiki. I am not a native speaker yet it's too easy to lose track of whether I am using any metaphor/idiom, because they flow into the writing, naturally. Despite that, I, as someone who is proficient in multiple languages, understand that lingustic and cultural relativism is very real and have thus, apologised for any mis-impressions that my statement caused.
I have never asked you to publish privileged discussions to me; that would be weird and insane.
As to your second issue, about deadline, it's some similar stuff. There was no declaration of any hard deadline (are you taking it in some corporate sense? weird) but rather an optimum timeframe, (atleast from my POV). My response can be literally paraphrased as :- I don't understand, what are you talking about but then, that's above my designated wiki-roles/abilities. At any case, all's good and I expect to see it closed within a week or so.
Hope this satisfies you. Feel free to have the last word. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I'm wondering is, is WMF going to be involved, or is it all going to be coming from stewards? --Rschen7754 18:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
T&S are aware but I doubt they'll do something in the midst of en:WP:FRAM. --QEDK (talkenwiki) 06:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@HaithamS (WMF): mailed me after Rfc, suggest us discuss every sysyops situtation. I think they will involved. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You will notice the template on his user page that he is no longer working for / provide services to WMF. — regards, Revi 09:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: I am so sorry, but I didn't notice the template. --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


GUC is down, the two scripts that formerly worked to find small wiki deletion requests are down (linked on top of SRM), and a few other useful services are down. As such, it's quite significantly more complicated (or, in some cases with IP's, impossible) to combat xwiki vandalism and identify what pages need deleting on wikis with no administrators. Is anyone able to fix this? Vermont (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure: I did write one of the delete.php scripts, but I dropped my access to the stewardbots project on toollabs, and even if I did have access it has been 5 years since I touched PHP so I can't promise that I can fix it. But the problem seems to be here: wikitech:News/Actor storage changes on the Wiki Replicas. --Rschen7754 21:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Rs: Did you mean mw:Actor migration? The link you provided is wrong. Esteban16 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, fixed it now. Reading that page I think it would be worth a try to go to [2] and change the word "logging" to "logging_compat" and see if that gets it to work (though they also warn that this is a temporary fix that might break again in the future). --Rschen7754 21:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello [3] didn't fixed it. I think it was broken before this whole lot of actor stuff but never had any idea how to bring it up again. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Thanks for trying. If I get a chance maybe I can get my old toollabs project working again, but if anyone wants to have a go at it feel free. --Rschen7754 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I have a couple of tracking tasks listed at about this. However given that I mostly do small fixes and restart the bots I am not sure I have the knowledge (and time, for now) to take a look at those issues right now. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont, Esteban16, MarcoAurelio, and Rschen7754: See also phab:T224930.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: I have taken a stab at this with gerrit:518187. Copying/pasting the queries into the MariaDB console seemed to work. MusikAnimal talk 04:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont, Esteban16, and MusikAnimal: It seems to work now, but it is very slow. --Rschen7754 00:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

CentralNotice disputeEdit

Hi stewards, I've disabled CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Pride 2019 as an emergency measure, since this CN seems to be opposed by the community. Since CentralNotice/Request says "the stewards team may be called upon to assess consensus", I think you should be informed about this. Feel free to revert my actions if you think it's warranted. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your action and thanks for informing us. Stryn (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Enigmaman (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia the use of administrator privileges to perform a site-wide action, proposed by that same administrator, in defiance of overwhelming community opposition and every relevant policy, and to then ignore all requests to self-revert over the period of multiple days, would result in the immediate removal of said privileges from that user. It appears that on Meta-Wiki, however, this kind of behaviour is simply par for the course, even though the Central Notices affect all projects and are seen by millions of readers. 07:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pharos was asked point-blank to remove the banner and did not. Not good. --Rschen7754 08:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the page should say a local admin instead of stewards. Stewards don't have any thing to do with CentralNotices, but oh well. Let's see what Pharos has to say about their action. Matiia (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The banner was not opposed by the community, it was opposed by exactly one editor who by their own account has opposed virtually every banner for the last 1.5 years, and whose objection was not actionable. That same editor then decided to post about this to the biggest controversy page on English Wikipedia in years, and we saw a bunch of effectively canvassed votes, after it was already live, that were entirely unrepresentative. I don't see anything in that sequence that should call for a self-revert from me, and I think this is an important initiative with broad support from the community that should be restored.--Pharos (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    A banner requires consensus in favor of it. It requires that the community be notified of the proposal at least seven days in advance. A banner put up without consensus or without notification should be reverted. The guidelines are not optional suggestions. --Yair rand (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Aren't guidelines by nature not policy? But also was there consensus for this or any of the others? Praxidicae (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Requiring consensus for non-fundraising banners was backed by very strong consensus in an RFC. Certain banners have unfortunately not followed procedure, notably this mess a few weeks ago. --Yair rand (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Procedural note: Re-enabled by Seddon (WMF). — regards, Revi 12:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A WMF-banned user is spamming me on simplewiki, Commons and the English version of WikinewsEdit

I don’t know what I had done to him. He keeps on spamming me on my talk pages there. Nigos (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

so the Commons Admins' Noticeboard discussion is here:
Someone from IP address wanted to reset my password. It wasn’t me. What do I do??? Nigos (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That IP address is already globally blocked (a few hours ago). Stryn (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Nigos (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My administrative rights on pl.wikiquote.orgEdit

I received a message from @Rschen7754: that "I meet the criteria for inactivity". He informed me that in order to preserve the rights, I should inform the community about this message.
Then, on this noticeboard, I am going to publish a discussion link in which the community will express the will to keep the rights.
Link to the received message:
I made all the points from the message I received:
- a link to the discussion in which I informed the community:ść%C5%B_administrator%C3%B3w
There was a one voice in the discussion "If you became active on the steward's request and upheld the desire to have rights, then you should be excluded from the stewards' attitude regarding inactivity."
No other votes were raised- -MariuszR (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I am an administrator in Polish wikiquote. I confirm what above. Zero (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The relevant policy is AAR. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello MariuszR. Thanks for your message. The notification you received is from Admin activity review. Given that you've returned to activity you'll be exempted this round, so you'll keep your permissions. I've added a note to our check page so they don't get removed in error notheless. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WMF-banned user RockystatuesEdit

Um, based on the spam that banned user put here, I think you should warn the Polish, English and Serbian Wikipedias and the English Wikiquote admins about what that banned user may do. Nigos (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

All of the people on that google group are the same person. He's been vandalizing those projects for a while, almost 15 years now iirc. There's no real need to do anything as those projects will simply revert and block the account. This has been happening for a long time, and the most we can do is demy recognition and simply revert, block, and ignore. Vermont (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

eyes neededEdit