Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2018-05

'test' global group

With regards to the test global group I'd like to say that I don't know where the whole lot of permissions came from; never had any elevated permissions other than 'edit', 'read' or 'sendemail', among others avalaible for all (un)registered users. As you can see in the log as well, the global group was deleted on 12 March 2017 and I don't know why it has appeared again and even less with the whole lot of checkboxes ticked. I've just noticed about this group existance after dealing with a request on SRGP. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Must have been created on another SUL wiki (maybe we should move the global group modifying permissions to the local group from the global one...) – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[]


Please lock this user (bad username) and delete the pages on testwiki. (deleted previously and other accounts locked).

(testwikiadmin note) - pages on testwiki have been deleted. — xaosflux Talk 16:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Favour to ask when removing rights to do a meta user page check

I am having a clean-up at meta of user pages with claims of advanced rights at their respective wikis—use of the user rights templates. It would be great if stewards were able to do a quick user page check here at meta where they are removing rights, or at least ask that a user or requester does a check for any claims. Thanks if you can.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Confidential submission for WikiJournals

Hello all,

Do you know if there are any areas of a WikiMedia wiki that are viewable only to specific members? I'm asking because we're discussing confidential submissions to WikiJournals, and whether it would be possible to handle the review process in private for a submission until it is accepted for publication. I know that private wiki servers like Miraheze do it, but I haven't heard of any WikiMedia projects allowing it. Any knowledge of such a feature?

It would be useful if WikiJournals become a separate sister project (proposal) but would still be helpful within Wikiversity (where the journals are currently hosted) be useful T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[]

There are some special-purpose private WMF wiki's that require an approved account to read list -- not sure if the foundation would want to support a private wiki for this purpose though. — xaosflux Talk 02:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Would agree with Xaosflux. Only wikis that WMF has are those that are clearly for the projects, or in direct support of the organisation and movement. Plus it is not a stewardry matter, this should either belong with the wiki creation space, or a general forum. Nothing even close to the scope of stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the info. It's very useful to know for future planning. For the WikiJournals, I think an adjunct wiki within the WMF ecosystem would be far preferable to some private enterprise. I thought to ping the stewards board mainly because you have a pretty broad knowledge across the projects. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


@Ajraddatz: @Bsadowski1: @Defender: @DerHexer: @Green Giant: @HakanIST: @Hoo man: @Jyothis: @Linedwell: @MarcoAurelio: @Mardetanha: @Masti: @Matanya and Matanya: @Matiia: @MBisanz: @Melos: @Mentifisto: @MF-Warburg: @NahidSultan: @Pmlineditor: @QuiteUnusual: @RadiX: @Ruslik0: @Rxy: @Shanmugamp7: @Sjoerddebruin: @Stryn: @Tegel: @Teles: @There'sNoTime: @Trijnstel: @Vituzzu: Is it fair that a constructive, new editor is blocked and then locked, and any new incarnations of them unable to edit despite this:

"..accounts that have been globally locked on charges of cross wiki disruption, spamming, or vandalism. Such users are not globally banned, per se. If they create new accounts and are not disruptive with those accounts, they will not be locked again merely because it is discovered that they were previously globally locked."

But it does not seem to matter. Users on wikipedia are falsely blocked and locked, with no appeal. And when they try to follow that policy, they are found out, blocked and then locked. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed.

But it won't be fixed. Because people are ignorant and refuse to believe that people can be different. To illustrate my point, I have been accused of being:

My Royal Young

I Love Bridges


And Iniced.

A lock has become a ban. This is not acceptable.

Do you really think that 700 constructive contribs on en.wp alone is unacceptable, and a editor who is not welcome?

"It seems like everyone is saying "If you are not contributing to article-space content, get out." That is not ok.

I know that this account will just be locked just like the other two. Because I am no longer welcome here. Please fix the system, even though I know you won't. I just want to edit constructively.

-Rufus Rose/Cæsey

Reisalice (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]

All I can do is agree with this user's complaint. Stewards should be following the policies, not abusing their use of the keys to the system.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Hello, I blocked/userpage deleted this account as it appeared to be behaving blatantly disruptive and claiming to be globally locked user User:Rufus Rose. @Billinghurst: and @Incnis Mrsi:, I did use templated rationales in the logs where a more descriptive explanation would have been more useful, apologies for confusion related to that. As this account is the main party of this overall discussion, would prefer to keep a single thread open for the best way forward. If there is a useful "wrong venue" argument here, I can follow up at RFH. — xaosflux Talk 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Yes it is Rufus Rose, and before that Cæsey. That is why they were here complaining about what they perceive as the injustice of stewards' actions. They should be allowed to raise such issues in a civil manner without being blocked by Meta admins. If you stop such complaints how will the community have visibility on where stewards are acting and without apparent review. Stewards are at the top of the tree with regard to access rights and should be subject to reasonable review, it is not apparent that this is happening, nor that there is clear and open accountability.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]
@Billinghurst: how can you be confident that Rufus_Rose told truth? This request didn’t produce anything visible. Note that the most recent account even can’t spell correctly a username he allegedly owned. Reisalice is likely the same as Rufus_Rose which definitely was not a wiki newbie, but this person is not necessarily Cæsey. This latter, contrary, may be a person rather new to wiki, albeit almost certainly having connections among people with years of experience. I proposed to unlock and interrogate Cæsey proper (albeit wrote it on en.Wikipedia, not Meta-wiki), but Ajraddatz dismissed the proposal. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]
I locked the Caesey account because it was engaged in disruptive behaviour across multiple projects, and I suspect that it was an LTA of some kind - though I agree that it is unlikely to be MRY. I opposed unlocking because it doesn't matter which master it belongs to, the account was acting disruptively across multiple wikis and that was the basis for the lock. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]
What did you achieve with this lock, Ajraddatz? Without it we’d have a sock puppeteer whose master account is indeffed in two wikis. In other words, a pure block evasion on several wikis, with an imminent global lock for cross-wiki sock puppetry alone and “promotion” to a LTA status. With it we have a person who may register accounts only because was technically unable to appeal blocks. An indef-blocked account can request unblocking. A locked account can’t be used at all. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]
As is the goal with any lock, preventing cross-wiki disruption. A locked user can still request unlocked by exactly the means that they (allegedly) did. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]
For someone who claims to want to be on the right side of things, you sure have an interesting way of showing it. Which one of these are you going by now? Dryercotes, Hartconan, 1984_Cadillac? Chrissymad (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Right, now I can respond, because autoblock has been lifted.

First, I was never banned or blocked from meta, and Xaoflux's block of me reinforces my point.

Second, I was only locked on a suspicion, and I have no idea why my 2nd account was locked.

Third, I did create those accounts, and i'm sorry for that.

Forth, I have proven on the Rufus Rose account that i can edit constructively, but i still get locked. Why?

1984 Cadillac(or Cæsey) 05:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]

  • As this user specifically created additional accounts to bypass their lock, come here and at least mildly harass volunteers (with mass notification triggers) - that is why I blocked. If the stewards want to extend the lock to these additional accounts, the matter is pretty much over, if not: if any 2 meta admins support unblocking (looks like @Billinghurst: is advocating for an unblock) I'll reverse without further ado. Please ping me if you are the second admin supporting unblock. — xaosflux Talk 12:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]
  • @Cæsey: if you intend on productively contributing then I'm happy to unlock your account, and have done so. Note that it will not remove any of your local blocks anywhere. I would recommend that you stop making new accounts, and just edit from the Cæsey one. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Thank you! Cæs tc 19:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]


0000We received this notification [1] about the global policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" on Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. We were also asked to notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki that if we ( as a community would like to create our own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that stewards missed.
0000We already (six months ago) made a decision about the removal of advanced rights of the certain users. That's our policy. The stewards haven't implemented our community decision for six months. What are You waiting for?
0000Recently we are deciding on the case-by-case basis, in order to avoid the gaming of the system (few edits every few years and then disappear and so on for decades), and also, to make sure that removal of the advanced rights is solely the result of our local decision, decision of our local community. Kubura (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[]

@Kubura: If your community has not complied with the policy, that may be your community's issue rather than everyone else's. The policy clearly states where communities are to add exclusions ... Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies with a statement about the local process. I would recommend adding a permalink to the summary. I would then suggest leaving a note at AAR17 asking them to remove the checks for 2018.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]
0000Soon we are about to start the community discussion and voting about this particular user. Kubura (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[]