Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2014-08

SRSUL

I just redirected Steward requests/SUL requests, which had no requests on it at the moment, to Steward requests/Username changes (and moving over the content relevant to requesting global account deletions) in order to reduce confusion about the often-overlapping scope of the pages. I hope nobody minds. --MF-W 21:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so! Ajraddatz (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dsimic: Could you please explain what is confusing or how to fix that? I know the ridiculous enwiki attitude of reverting with ambiguous edit summaries but elsewhere we tend to like discussing first. It's much more productive. It would be especially helpful if you could explain what is confusing and maybe... help to fix it? Ajraddatz (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment either. Should the redirect be deleted in the meantime, in your opinion? --MF-W 21:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I totally agree that discussing things is the key, so please allow me to explain – hopefully we'll end up with a good and usable solution.

I've read MF-Warburg's description of the merger between SRSUL and SRUC, and it all makes sense. However, let's have a look at it from my perspective as I'm by no means an expert for the Meta-Wiki stuff and procedures, thus I'm a typical editor that comes over here to do something related to usurping an account for his/her unified login. In my opinion, when the SRSUL is redirected to Steward requests/Username changes, the lengthy decriptions there are much more confusing when compared to clean and short descriptions in Steward requests/SUL requests.

The whole thing with unified logins, usurpations of accounts, etc. is quite confusing and—in my opinion—any further lengthy description turns editors away from trying to resolve already existing accounts preventing them from getting a clean unified login. You know, one spends some time figuring out what the unified login is and how to get it, then goes through the merging procedure, and lastly discovers that some accounts are standindg in the way of a clean unified login. Then the editor spends some more time searching for what's to be done, and then lands onto a page that describes so much stuff, while he/she needs just to request an usurpation! "What the..." is a natural and expected reaction. :) BTDT, so I know how it would feel. :)

In other words, the reason why I've reverted the redirection is pure usability. Editors should be encouraged to resolve already existing accounts with the same usernames before the automated SUL finalization, and such a lengthy book-style page isn't that great. It might be redirected again, but it should be improved so there's a clear and easy-to-read description at the top of page saying what's to be done for unified logins.

Just my $.02. :) — Dsimic (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts, please? :) — Dsimic (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Dsimic, «pure usability. Editors should be encouraged to resolve already existing accounts» confuses me quite. The whole point of Steward requests/SUL requests is its scary red warning "please don't use me! please ask locally on 200 wikis if they have a bureaucrat and then come here when your shoes are completely consumed". I have no idea how that can be more user friendly than a single page with some text that nobody reads anyway and a friendly yellow link "just click this one and we'll solve all your problems". --Nemo 21:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, now I'm confused with the "friendly yellow link"? :) Where's that link? Regarding the "pure usability", that's how I see it, as Steward requests/SUL requests is pretty much the (optional) last step in anyone's journey toward a clean unified login, so that step should be as clear as possible instead of presenting a lengthy description. Just as I already wrote above, redirecting to Steward requests/Username changes would be fine if we had a short note at the top that really pops and tells what's to be done for unified logins.

Hope it makes more sense. — Dsimic (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The things that can be requested on SRSUL are usurpations (i.e. renames) and deletions of global accounts. Renames can also be requested on SRUC. I don't see how global account deletions are that important and frequent that they need an extra request page. --MF-W 09:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a steward, and I'm not sure that I understand the difference between the two pages. --Rschen7754 16:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Time to start afresh. One page that has global renames as one section, and another that looks at usurps/merges/... as another. We also need to look at the text as it is now redundant for the situation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘
Hm. I rather mind. Until sul finalization it should be as it used to be. I once requested deleting sul for my second acc and I think other may want to do it too. The redirect could be misleading now. --Base (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing changed. You can still request account deletions. --MF-W 22:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Global rename is meanwhile functional. It becomes less and less senseful to have separate pages for 1.) requesting global renames and still-needed local renames, 2.) local renames and account deletions. Any more opinions on this? --MF-W 21:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

SRUC is enough. Stewards who do the renames know what to do in each case anyway, and having two pages makes it more confusing for new users. --Glaisher (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Having it all under one roof, which would be the Steward requests/Username changes page, is perfectly fine. It's the description on Steward requests/Username changes what was confusing, as I've already described it above. — Dsimic (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I implemented the redirect again. --MF-W 21:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. If the SRUC page is not clear or helpful enough someone should be bold and fix it. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• The template used on SRUC is much more complicated and tedious than that on former SR/SUL. I hope it's ok if I continue using the old format on my requests. –xeno 00:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, and current SRUC page says this on top:

  This is also the page where stewards can be requested to deal with problems relating to the unified login feature. These include usurpation of accounts and deletion of global accounts.

  This is better than the earlier version, IIRC; however, later in the page that isn't explained well as pretty much everything deals with renaming accounts. In my book, that's confusing as no instructions are given how to actually ask to usurp an account, for example. I've thought about being bold and adding more language to the page, but that would involve additional request templates, so I've lost the momentum required for discussing that here first. :) However, here we are, probably that should be discussed. — Dsimic (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

216 toolserver.org URLs in MediaWiki namespace

Reedy kindly made a list: [1]. Those must be replaced with their successors; or, when there isn't any, commented out/removed and reported. When these are done, the URLs in user namespaces will need to be checked as well, because sometimes user scripts are imported from site scripts... Other than stewards and global sysops, obvious candidates for the work are global interface editors: 99of9, Elitre, Halfak, Helder.wiki, Jack Phoenix, Jon, Krenair, Krinkle, Matma Rex, Nikerabbit, Petrb, Tpt, can you help? One edit is better than zero. :-) --Nemo 14:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• arwiki and bnwiki are done. Helder 20:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I copied it into http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/localjs-toolserver.org - removed some entries I did earlier and removed arwiki and bnwiki entries per Helder's comment above. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to fix the Commons interface pages. Is there some place where I can look up whether a script has a successor and what the new URL is? Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

mw:Tool Labs/Collection of issues after Toolserver shutdown partially works in such a way. --MF-W 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-related: I also made https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/localjs-secure.wikimedia.org --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

External maps embedded

FYI, may need some cleanup: Wikivoyage/Lounge#Maps_loading_external_resources. --Nemo 18:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, that's worrisome. Thank you for letting us know. I will try to get in touch with you on IRC to discuss the matter. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

mr-wikipedia & mr wikimedia projects has independant local policy for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts.

Hi,

Season's greetings to all the Steward community members. This is to inform you that, Marathi language ; i.e. mr-wikipedia & mr wikimedia projects have independant local policy for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts (Ref:Mr-wiki policy decesion). As follows:

1) Inactivity without single edit or single admin activity of minimum six years can lead to removal of an admin/sysop/beurocrat with following riders 2) In any case minimum one Marathi language Sysop/beuracrat has to be their at mr-wikiproject. Until either a new one is elected or an old one comes back. Marathi language projects sysopship of Marathi language people can not and should not go to null and all mr-wiki project indiepandance be vehemently defended and not compromised at all costs and independance retained in favour of Marathi people only for ever. 3) Old sysops removed after six years of inactivity can request coming back onboard with advise from rest of existing sysops on local wiki projects and appointed directly by beurocrat need not have local reelection. Marathi Wiki projects stand for sysop stability and avoid undue democratisation of knowledge projects to maintian neutrality and substance.

Please take the above into consideration and update the info at suitable places at your end

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: Can you confirm that mrwiki knows that desysop requests can be filed at SRP? I don't see any past request in the logs. Also, can you link to the policy in the other mr-language projects? --Rschen7754 02:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here with we confirm Mr-wiki is very well aware of SRP. The above given new policy has been adopted last year, the previous policy was permanant sysopship. While community is more for retaining experienced hands rather than retiring them but there were couple of self resignations which you can see from logs.

Policy page links for rest of the projects will be intimated at this noticeboard indipendantly soon.

Rgds

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; we will cancel the process for mrwiki. We would appreciate links for the other projects when you have a chance. --Rschen7754 03:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome for above support, below section has policy intimation regarding Marathi language wiktionary as requested by your good selves.

Warm Rgds

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk)

mr-Wiktionary project has independant local policy for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts.

As per following policy decesion at mr- wiktionary, similler to Marathi wikipedia following is the policy.

1) Inactivity without single edit or single admin activity of minimum six years can lead to removal of an admin/sysop/beurocrat with following riders 2) In any case minimum one Marathi language Sysop/beuracrat has to be their at mr-wikiproject. Until either a new one is elected or an old one comes back. Marathi language projects sysopship of Marathi language people can not and should not go to null and all mr-wiki project indiepandance be vehemently defended and not compromised at all costs and independance retained in favour of Marathi people only for ever. 3) Old sysops removed after six years of inactivity can request coming back onboard with advise from rest of existing sysops on local wiki projects and appointed directly by beurocrat need not have local reelection. Marathi Wiki projects stand for sysop stability and avoid undue democratisation of knowledge projects to maintian neutrality and substance.

Please take the above into consideration and update the info at suitable places at your end

• At mr Wiktionary wikt:mr:user:श्रीहरि are due for review. Certainly I will intiate the process locally and intimate the same at SRP as suggested by you above. But before that mr Wiktionary wikt:mr:user:श्रीहरि is an expert in Marathi language grammer and actually has one of the prime actor in Marathi Wiktionary grammar formats and I will inform on his talk page as well as I will try to contact him online through community and try to get back him active again. If that does not work then will complete removal process duely as per the local policy.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one - did the community ever have a full discussion on this? We respect the right of communities to make their own decisions, but we want to make sure that this was approved by the community... --Rschen7754 04:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

At mr wiktionary the notice has been left for a year and actually a discussion had taken place at mr-wikipedia already and the people are same so no point in going over to another project and discussing again. It is just technicality still if you want we can get it voted in due course. At the end wikis are not democrasies who is present their word is support to matter. If you dont agree we can agree with your rule books temporarily but frankly enough we are not will not be comfortable that meta to use this opportunity to reduce our project indipendance in any manner.

Thanks Rgds

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We will cancel the process on mr.wiktionary for this round. The first step in the AAR process also involves receiving objections from the community, and since you are expressing objections here, carrying out AAR would cause the same result (no desysop). --Rschen7754 02:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admin on is.wikibooks

Hi, got a message from Rschen7754 regarding inactivity: I doubt there will be any discussion on the matter within the 'community' since it is not very active so you can just go ahead and remove my rights. :) --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Done and thank you for your service! --Rschen7754 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admins on li.wikt

Inactive admins may only be removed by vote: [2] [3]. Stewards should not interfere with that on li.wikt. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --Rschen7754 13:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin activity review on hr.wikipedia.org

The Croatian Wikipedia is in the process of creating rules in regards to activities of administrators as part of an overarching review of the rules for electing administrators, and administrator rules. Vodomar (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vodomar: Thanks for letting us know. Can you please inform us again when the discussion has concluded? --Rschen7754 06:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

li.wikipedia

Hi, while there is no formal policy on admins on li:, I ask you NOT to remove anyone's admin rights. The user in question has left the wiki but I would love to see him return. Removing his bureaucrat status would probably lower the odds of him returning. There are at the moment only 2 active users at this wiki, and while I have not consulted the other user, I think there is a consensus on this issue. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 21:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steinbach: can you please have the other user comment? --Rschen7754 22:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is currently being discussed at the local village pump. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 16:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The other user has commented ;) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Pahles has made a local edit, and there is clear consensus, so we will not remove the rights. --Rschen7754 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admins on :mgwiki

Hello, I have just initiated a community discussion about the inactive admins on mg:Wikipedia:Mpandrindra, and requested the community about keeping my admin status. It is also important to note that 4 admins over 5 are flagged as inactive, which may lead to leave only one admin on this wiki, this is the main reason why I have asked to maintain my status there. -- AlNo (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Alno:, the purpose of the review is to see that the appointed admins are active, not to strip away rights. It is to allow the open discussion in a community about activity, and the knowledge of who is and is not active, and to allow the community to make the decisions that best work for that community. So thanks for the contact and good luck with that discussion, we look forward to hearing your outcomes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

lv wiki

Hello! Can local community suggest some additional users? --Edgars2007 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To be removed for inactivity? lv.wikipedia is always free to make its own local inactivity policy, using a more strict criteria than 2 years. --Rschen7754 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The local community is also free to undertake its own reviews, and identify and locally manage inactivity. Without a local policy, you would need to utilise the AAR standard of two years, and the contact methodology. Stewards encourage communities to have an active management regime in place, and what you are seeing here is what we consider the base standard, and a means for us to capture the truly inactive. For the why, please read the discussion that took place in the development of the policy. Thanks for the query.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 and Billinghurst: Yes, to be removed for inactivity. I was talking about adding some sysops to the list. We had a discussion about this a few years ago, but nothing happened, so I think my colleagues wouldn't mind to add some users on the list. We could make a mini voting in our Village pump, if needed. --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that if they have been inactive for more than two years, that you add the same pings that have been done by stewards, and add them to that list with links. It isn't usual, though it is not contrary to the policy, and shouldn't be too hard to follow through (and I think that Rschen7754 will probably [deservedly] give me a nipple-cripple for saying that) You can check activity via Wiki: lvwiki.org (list 'crats • no standard bot policy • summary • 'crats rights)  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Something like that would also need the backing of the community, as we're going off the list generated in January to be fair to all wikis. But there are no admins who fall into that category on this particular wiki. --Rschen7754 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. When I did the wording, I was fairly careful with it to allow broadest action. AAR states two years inactivity (one marker); what is inactivity (second marker). It states that stewards will do a semi-annual or annual review (how we would compile our lists), and where we would and would not act. It does not say that AAR can only be applied at/following that review, though indicates that we are not going to be doing it on the anniversary of someone stopping action. I would agree that outside of steward's audit, that stewards will not act due to an anniversary of inaction without a community review/discussion taking place. PLUS, if we got to that stage, I would think that a community is sufficiently mature and better able to have its own review process based on the global standard, especially as it will be in the language of that community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that our opinions are that far off, actually... but in this case, there aren't any admins in that gap on this wiki between 2 years and the cutoff for the AAR lists, and hopefully AAR2015 won't have a 12 month delay --Rschen7754 02:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And our preference is for communities to do their own reviews, to the global standard or something that each community improves upon. Stewards only wish to be the fallback mechanism in the minimum number of situations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that this wouldn't be fair to other Wikipedias. But we have some 2 or 3 candidates, that aren't on the list. lv:User:Tail, one of our 3 bureaucrats, whose last normal edit was in 2008, in 2013 just said, that she is currently retired. lv:User:Zummis made his last log action in 2009 and he said, that he supports democracy, if the thing goes to voting (I think this can be some kind of voting ). The last one lv:User:Yyy (second of our three bureaucrats) is tricky one. He does show up some time, but his last log action is in 2011. So, if we (lv.wiki community) can't add them on the list (and notify them at their talk pages etc.), we can make an official voting at @lvwiki and then go to... [here should be some link to page @Meta, I know that you guys have one for this purpose] (our bureaucrats can't remove the the rights from sysops and bureaucrats, just give them to sysops)? --Edgars2007 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can then go to Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access :) --MF-W 11:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting auto-archiving on stewards' pages

With Quentin's bot being inactive, we need to look to alternate means, so I have asked Steinsplitter to see if we can utilise his active bot to do archiving for Steward request/... pages. If not, we may need to look at alternatives as we haven't managed to hear back from Q.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:ArchiverBot is up and running, and archiving e.g. this page. --MF-W 11:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't this page that I was talking about. I don't mind which bot we have set up to archive SRx pages, as long as we get one, especially SRUC which is getting traffic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Tested, i can run it. Ping me if you need the bot. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we do need a bot for this because QuentinBot is now inactive. Do we have to a separate RfBf for this, because at Meta:Requests for bot status/SteinsplitterBot closing crat says "approve that bot to update the discussion index pages"? Thanks, --Glaisher (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to say that a bot exists which can easily be used. If it archives this page, there is no difficulty to make it archive others as well. --MF-W 11:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not mw:Manual:Pywikibot/archivebot.py/setup... --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I know that that bot is not a page on mw.org. --MF-W 12:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I mind not whether it is php of Steinsplitter-bot, or pywikibot of ArchiverBot, it is the outcome that I am looking to achieve. I will leave other stewards to have their opinion for a couple of days, and we can see what is the consensus for a preferred approach.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the difference between the bot for this page and the steward requests page is that it looks for "Done" or "locally handled" or stuff in the status... so the code would need to be different. --Rschen7754 16:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

See Meta:Requests for bot status/SteinsplitterBot 2 --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)