Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2020-08

Give me permissions to delete account

Someone likely not welcome me to my wiki, Nothing I Can't said in my talk page "If that's the case then go somewhere else. Don't make a wiki. It's just tiring". I only want to cross out a vote that have opinion not-related to discussion, and my community does not accept that. So steward, give me a permission to delete this account - so that no one can't respond to me anymore. Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 03:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

I don't think stewards are able to delete global accounts for you, as this would cause attribution issues for other editors across the Wikimedia network. You can however request courtesy vanishing on your global account if that's what you want to do, as that is the next best option to deleting an account. Hx7 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Interface admin rights for new wikis importers?

User:Jon Harald Søby and I have noticed that as new wikis importers, we can't editsitecss, editsitejson and editsitejs (anymore; because previously this was of course part of editinterface). It would be useful to have, since sometimes imported pages require certain css/js to actually work properly. Now there is the absurd situation that we can import css and js pages however we want, but not edit them. Can you add the mentioned rights to our user group? --MF-W 14:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]

  •   Support Leaving this opened if someone has objections. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I don't think changing this is controversial, also I think this is a natural need. However, I am wondering if 2FA activation is required to change. @Martin Urbanec:, Do you know anything about this? --Sotiale (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I would recommend new wiki importers to enable 2FA, yes. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Having int-admin in general requires 2FA by WMF now, so this would require all the new-wikis-importers to activate 2FA (currently that would only potentially impact SPQRobin as the others should already have this by virtue of being int-admin somewhere else). That being said, seems reasonable enough. — xaosflux Talk 20:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Yup. Any group that can touch user/site CSS/JS must have 2FA enabled and keep it enabled while having them permissions. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I think this is a reasonable and probably non controversial change to make. As interface administrators already need 2FA, I think there should be no doubt that New wiki importers also need it when this change goes through. --Wiki13 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]
The 2FA-enabling right needs to be added then as well, so the group can be "standalone", right? --MF-W 23:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]
It's that catch-22 - users are supposed to have 2FA enabled to get this access, not add it after they have the access -- but we adamantly don't allow users to enroll without silly hoops to jump though - that is a trivial "permission" to add though :D — xaosflux Talk 15:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Marking as   Approved by the community. New wiki importers were audited for 2FA enrollment, and all current new wiki importers who did not so already were asked to enable 2FA. As soon as the 2FA will be enabled for everyone, or reasonable time will pass, the permission change will be done. Until then, new wiki importers were allowed to enroll to 2FA via the oathauth-enable permission, and the group was marked as requiring 2FA at New wikis importers. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[]

  Done @Jon Harald Søby and MF-Warburg: Interface admin-level permissions were added to the importer's global group. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Granting Global rollbackers patrolmarks

Hi. At Talk:Global rollback#Proposal (patrolmarks) there is a proposal to grant global rollbackers patrolmarks. Does this need to be discussed in a full RfC? If not, what is the process for closing the discussion? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[]

  Done Uncontroversial, within group's scope, so implemented. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Ask for quick stop of vandalism on Japanese Wikipedia

Dear sir,

I read a note that tells "Reports of vandalism on wikis with no or few administrators as Miscellaneous" at Steward_requests page. Since Japanese wiki has very few administrators, a judgment done by a certain person is often NOT proper. This leads into serious problems to concerned users. There was such a serious case quite recently. User:Aiwokusai and his fellows attacked an IP user by a rumor. As they fabricated the whole story, the IP user was banned immediately. A administrator in JA did not hear a IP's refutal at all.

please see these links:

I think we had better solve this case immediately, because vandalism is still going on at Japanese Wiki, and I am afraid that this situation would give damage to japanese-Wiki project.

Truly yours,

--Green (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Stewards can’t help you. Your block must be controlled locally, no one outside the wiki can help you, unless it's abuse, you have to prove it--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 06:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]
@WikiBayer: Thank you. I know here that Meta-Wiki can oversee the whole project. I wonder which side has to prove a truth in this case. If this story goes, it is very easy to defeat an opposite side.
One definite way is to make sure the IP address in question, but who is in charge for its proof? It seems to me that it is a duty for an offensive to prove its guilty, as we all are considered innocent in the beginning. --Green (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]
@Green: Wikimedia Stewards can revoke administrator permissions, in case there is a demonstrated abuse of the permissions. However, we cannot interfere in case there are local users that can act, as it is the case at ja.wikipedia, which has 41 administrators. The stewards don't override consensus or bypass the community, see Stewards policy. I'm afraid there's nothing we can do for you at this point. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Modification of AAR policy for

Previously, had an AAR policy of "AAR doesn't apply and nobody gets flags removed due to inactivity." Per what I believe to be consensus to change this policy (no major opposition, request open for quite some time to gather feedback), I've removed the special policy from Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies to opt into the standard AAR process. If the stewards judge that sufficient consensus wasn't reached for this change, or that me closing it as successful was improper as I am not a neutral party, please feel free to revert this and drop a note on the RfC. Thanks! --Skizzerz (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Looks good to me. Thanks for letting us know. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Thanks for keeping us updated --Alaa :)..! 15:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Sock puppets in the Hebrew Wikipedia

Hello, I have opened a RFC dealing with sock puppets in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Further details are shown here. As it deals with sock puppets who intentionally destroy the Hebrew Wikipedia, I notified here. Dgw (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Please lock these fake accounts

Slasher405 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure I would call them fake accounts as they could, after all, have been created by him / his team. However, the offensive one has been locked and the others are blocked on en.wikipedia. That should be sufficient. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[]