Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2019-04

Vandalism in Chuvash Wikipedia

User:Патша Тихон 2019 is vandalising articles. I reverted them, they reverted me back ([1], note that this is a BLP, thus this is BLP vandalism). The admin, Viktor, has not edited since 10 February. I would appreciate if one of you can block the vandal. Essentially, every user having Тихон in their name on cv.wp is the same vandal; several months ago they blanked five thousand articles and I had to roll everything back spending one day of my time. Thanks you in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I have locally blocked and reverted. I will leave the stewards to do whichever actions they deem appropriate. Thanks for that report.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It would seem that the wiki needs someone with admin rights. Creating a filter based on the user name is just going to cause a change in user name, and working out their actions and trying to defeat them is difficult without a more intimate knowledge of what they are doing, and why.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I could apply for a global sysop as well, since I am on that wiki every day (I add POTDs and also check the recent changes), but since I do not have time to participate in the anti-vandalism team and to monitor all the projects, I do not think it makes much sense. (I do not speak local languages but I speak Russian).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter. If you only need local sysop right, just announce this on the village pump and then after 7 days, raise it to stewards at SRP. If you need sysop rights on many wikis, then global sysop will be helpful. Best,--Cohaf (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I know this. I am not comfortable having local sysop right on a project where I do not speak the language. (I held once a two month temporary sysop on another project just to clean it up, but here we are talking about a permanent one).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You can ask for a temporary adminship anyway and I don't think billinghurst is saying a permanent one. Nevertheless, if you run for global sysop I'll support. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will think about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I am just saying that it needs an admin to look after it who has a better understanding. If the community is able to find another/more admin(s) that is best, anything else is less perfect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Global sysops now require 2FA

Hello stewards, please note when processing requests that per WMF (Special:Diff/19000730) global sysops now require two-factor authentication (as they have edit interface access within their wikiset). Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

URL shortener for the Wikimedia projects will be available on April 11th

Hello dear stewards,

I'd like to inform you that a new feature, the URL shortener service, will be enabled next week.

What is important for you to know, is that the stewards will have the ability to delete or restore the short links. It is described in the documentation: there will be a special page on Meta (not created yet), where you can perform this action.

if you have any technical question, feel free to ask @Ladsgroup: who can provide more information.

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello dear stewards,

Could one of you check that Special:ManageShortUrls is working? I can't access it because, well, it's reserved to you :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Works for me; thanks for the notice. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Short question: where should we leave deletion requests regarding the URL shortener? Do you also have a blacklisting technique that prevents short URLs to pages listed on such a list? I already see users doing dubious things using the URL shortener. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Steward requests/Miscellaneous perhaps. I'm not feeling that anything "secret" would be present in these, if so we could just let the meta admins deal with this at RFH? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I plan to add the page where deletion requests should be left at Wikimedia URL Shortener. It says that only Stewards can delete those short URLs, thus I'm asking here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Other part is active at Talk:Wikimedia_URL_Shortener#Allow_Meta-wiki_admins_delete_them. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As you prefer, I don't have strong opinion. You can create a subpage of Steward requests, we can also use the documentation talk page ; in any case, this deletion request page should be linked from the documentation. Thanks for taking care of it! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If the nature of the deletion is sensitive that you cannot discuss onwiki, use stewardswikimedia.org. Otherwise, I think SRM is sufficient. — regards, Revi 06:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Stewards and copyvio

If sysops refuse to deal with blatant copyright-violations over a wiki, can stewards step in? See az:İstifadəçi_müzakirəsi:Araz_Yaquboglu#What, Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki and Requests for comment/Copyright violations and no reason block by sysop on Azwiki. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Vituzzu:. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Special:Permalink/19047953. — regards, Revi 17:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Do stewards even read this noticeboard anymore? It seems that there are only 10% that do. --Rschen7754 18:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

*tumbleweed* --Base (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Stewards: I've asked some questions to clarify some issues at Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki. Given the answers, I may make a proposal over the weekend.

I've been a steward before. I know the tendency is to ignore complex things like this, like many did with hrwiki. Please do not ignore this one. This is part of the role, too. I know you're not a global ArbCom, but in clear cases of abuse I believe that since WMF / WMF Board has clearly stated that they won't interfere in this sort of matter, that stewards are left having to act once there is a clear global consensus. --Rschen7754 18:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking over the issue. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki#Proposal

Hello. I have proposed removing all administrators, bureaucrats, and interface admins from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia due to concerns about copyright violations, abuse of the block tool, and use of admin tools to push POV editing. Evaluation of the situation on this Wikipedia by outside Wikimedia editors would be appreciated. Rschen7754 01:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Closed Wikinews sites and AAR

If a Wikinews has soft-closed (in that it no longer publishes articles and has archived the Main Page, but the wiki remains editable in case someone wants to restart it) - how does that affect AAR?

Case in point: Swedish Wikinews has n:sv:Wikinews:Administratörer#Inaktivitetspolicy, but I asked the active bureaucrat if it was still valid and got an unclear response: n:sv:Användardiskussion:Ainali#Inactive_admins/bureaucrats. --Rschen7754 05:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also see past discussion at Stewards'_noticeboard/Archives/2015-02#RE:Admin_activity_Review@svnews. --Rschen7754 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO it should be a clean start with a new community requiring new consensus to opt-out, otherwise AAR and other global policies should apply. — regards, Revi 05:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually I am leaning to the position that if nobody is maintaining the site it should be closed, but I don't think LangCom will support my view. — regards, Revi 21:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Bump. --Rschen7754 06:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not just clear (i.e. remove all of) them? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that policy allows us to. --Rschen7754 00:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Add am.wikipedia.org to GS wikiset

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.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aldnonymous: Their community previously voted to opt out of global sysop: [2]. 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.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 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.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 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...--AldNonymous^Bicara? 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?--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 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.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 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.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 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.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 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?--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 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 #1

(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.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 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 cswikisource

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)