Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2020-02

Requests for comment/Include interface administrators for AAR closed as accepted

To stewards to note that I have closed Requests for comment/Include interface administrators for AAR as acceptable by consensus to the community, and updated the policy requisite to the proposal. The announcement has been removed from the main page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[]

How do I get a steward to respond to me?

My IP address was blocked in mid January. I submitted a global exemption request around January 17. I have heard nothing since then. I keep looking through all the wiki pages and cannot find any mechanism that allows me to contact a steward for followup. If this is the wrong venue for this request, I apologize. However, I think the stewards nees to do a much better job of providing transparency and feedback when they block IP addresses. Rogermx (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[]

@Rogermx: Your account was made exempt from global IP blocks on 24 January. Did it not work? As far as responding is concerned, there is a backlog of almost 400 emails. Each email needs careful consideration and can take a while to resolve. Please bear in mind that the stewards are volunteers. -Green Giant (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[]
      • Green Giant, thank you very much for your response. Yes, mMy IP address was blocked again by SQLand is still blocked now. I appreciate the important work that the stewards do and that they are donating their time. However, it gets frustrating when you get no feedback about what is happening. If I hadn't made this posting, the stewards would have assumed that everything was OK with my account. Again, I appreciate your help on this. Rogermx (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[]
        @Rogermx: There has been no change to the block, and you have been granted global IP exemption, you should be able to edit. Check that there is not a local block for wherever you are trying to edit as you should be able to circumvent whatever a steward has put in place. Special:BlockList/ would be the local variant to check, and you should try a similar link at the wiki of interest, eg. w:en:Special:BlockList/  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[]
        @Rogermx: You were blocked by a local admin's actions at enWP, and no steward action was going to be able to circumvent that admin's IP block. I have granted you local IPBE right for enWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Please keep wikt:ro:Utilizator:KlaudiuMihaila's admin&bureaucrat rights


After proposing for the rights to be kept on ro.wiktionary, following this discussion with User:Robbie SWE, the community of ro-wiktionary has a consensus for keeping the rights active. We will also start work on developing a local policy to tackle this issue. Please do not remove those rights for now. Thank you! — KlaudiuMihăilă Message 23:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[]

@KlaudiuMihaila: Done. Thanks for letting us know. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Request for help

@Tegel, Mardetanha, RadiX, and Jon Kolbert: Please see the request page. - 14:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Apparent confusion as to what policy governs global sysops

Based on Talk:Global_sysops#Requirement_for_Babel_boxes, it appears that global sysops do not believe that m:Global sysops is a policy that applies to all global sysops. Could a steward advise as to what the top-level policy is to govern global sysop actions? Thanks -- (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[]

There is no such confusion. Please do not manipulate statements. Also, to note that stewards do not make the rules, nor do they regulate meta pages, nor are they the bosses. Please educate yourself to the role of Stewards. You are just misrepresenting and refusing to listen to opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[]
Agreed, and this forum shopping is highly inappropriate. Drop the stick, already. Waggie (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[]
I will not say this as forum shopping as it's a right stewards grant so this notification is useful. Just a note, I am assuming good faith at a higher degree than most will do on the basis that not all are familiar with how meta works. However, since there is a discussion on that page as well which is the usual page we discuss GS issue on, and this duplication and separation of comments / ideas is not useful, so there is no point this thread go on any further. Let me close this thread before any further disruption. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[]


Hi all, according to the tool, there are 2 admins who did not make any logged actions / edits in the past 10 years. Yes you read that right. From Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies, it states that li.wiktionary's sysops can "only be removed by vote (policy)". How should we proceed with this? Minorax (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[]

@Minorax: I guess the local community didn't monitor carefully, the exclusion policy seems valid still. So the way is to post a message to the village pump or equivalent to remind them to hold the vote. Should they not respond properly and in time, we can then void their activity policy. This is quite common with small communities not enforcing their local AAR proceedures. We just need to remind them in such cases. Thanks for flagging this out. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[]
@Camouflaged Mirage: Also to point out, li.wikipedia's policy is "Admins are for life" and there's 1 sysop who has been inactive for 8 years. Minorax (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[]
@Minorax: I guess they are saying that admins rights are granted indefinitely (which is true in most projects with crats/ large enough projects/ legacy projects before tempsysop comes into place). Let's leave a message on their village pump to remind them to hold the vote on the 2 inactive sysops. I am a little busy right now but if no one beats me to it, I will leave a message by the end of this day (local time). --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[]
@Minorax:   Done Asked them here, hope for some response then. I also want to point out that we should really revisit all the local inactivity policies and see do they make sense and are they really enforced, or else they should be subjected to AAR.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[]

I responded on li.wikt. For Tvdm, I will organize a vote. In the case of Steinbach, I prefer for him to keep the access, as he is still active on wikipedia. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Thank you for the response. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[]

New abusefilter variable : wiki_name

Hi to all. To let those who aren't watching steward tickets in phabricator that we now have a new variable for use in abusefilters, wiki_name (rules format edit). It will be useful if we need to exclude or include specific wikis from filters, and it will have some capacity for substrings of sister wikis when used in combination with another new variable wiki_language.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[]

CBD spam and AF/72

The CBD type spam is quite insistent. Usually we can put a challenge into a spam filter and that often can be enough to deter the spam. This CBD spam is pushing through and I have moved the catching component to a disallow filter. I have gone lighter on the terms used, so interested in hearing of any spam that is making it onto global abusefilter wikis after about 2020-02-27 12:00:00 UTC when I migrated the filter components to AF/72. Then we can update if required.

[Note that I less like playing with AF/72 as it does a whole lot of things and crunches a nasty hardcore regex.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[]

There are some which missed by 72, I did a test filter at AF/240 which catches almost all. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[]
I am not particularly interested in what /240 catches as comparing two sets of filters looking for difference is a futile act. More interested in someone pointing me to those that have got through, so I can review and update the filter. Abusefilters is not about purity, it is just one of the defences as they utilise techniques caught in multiple filters, and blacklists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[]
Something like this?. Noted on the rest of your points. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[]
  • @Billinghurst: GMGtalk 17:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[]
    Thanks. They are broadly spreading their love across namespace with force, we are going to need to be more generous with our filters and our responses. Grrrr and we knew that it would be coming. Just need to make sure that we are not duplicating our filter hits to respond, that will blow the logs in length.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[]
    I am really tempted to activate 240 to a prevent type of filter. As 72 for mainspace may not be that appropriate of fear of false positive.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[]

2020 Steward elections results

The 2020 Steward elections have ended today at 14:00 UTC.

The Election Committee, after verifying the votes, has announced the final results. The following 7 candidates were elected:

  1. BRPever (talk · contribs)
  2. Krd (talk · contribs)
  3. Martin Urbanec (talk · contribs)
  4. MusikAnimal (talk · contribs)
  5. Sakretsu (talk · contribs)
  6. Sotiale (talk · contribs)
  7. Tks4Fish (talk · contribs)

The Election Committee wishes to thank all of the candidates for their time and interest and the voters for the time spent reviewing the candidates and taking part in this important global process. Also the ElectCom wishes to thank all the other volunteers who helped in the coordination of the election process.

The results of the 2020 Stewards confirmation will be determined in the upcoming days.

For the Election Committee,

Congratulations, everyone. And good luck in the new role! Trijnsteltalk 17:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[]
Congrats to all newly elected stewards! – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[]
Congratulations --Alaa :)..! 17:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[]
Congratulations to all :)--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[]
Congratulations. There are is a lot of work that awaits you.:) Ruslik (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Voter eligibility for SE

I noticed that the voter eligibility criteria do not mention a situation where someone might be blocked on Meta-Wiki but otherwise meets the criteria. What would be the procedure for such an event? Vermont (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Being blocked is a function of meta administration and actions on this wiki, so it is not particularly an issue for stewards. While eligible to vote they cannot due to their behaviour; eligibility to vote is just that, it is not a right to vote. The blocked user should have thought of this when they were undertaking whatever got them blocked. [Remembering they have the right to appeal a block on their user talk page.] I could see that through an act of generosity that an administrator could suspend a block for a short period to allow a user to vote, though that would be the generosity of the meta admin.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[]
There's previously a discussion about this: Talk:Stewards/Elections 2018#Donald Trung votes.--GZWDer (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[]