Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2020-09

Global ban request for a locked account

Please see Requests for comment/Global ban for Sidowpknbkhihj and Special:CentralAuth/Sidowpknbkhihj - if an account is already locked should a global ban discussion be closed as moot? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[]

I think it should be closed as moot but not sure what others think. If someone wants to second me, just close it :P — regards, Revi 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[]
"Moot" is not a correct term to describe such situation since global bans are means to be formal sanction, but I will oppose such request (for now) as I do not think it will add anything useful to a global lock. Anyway, a successful global ban is only exceedingly unusual situation.--GZWDer (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[]
-revi, i'm not a Steward but i second this. It should be closed as i withdraw my RfC. SMB99thx 04:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Withdrawn, case closed. — regards, Revi 11:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 11:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Global sysops on tlwiki

Hi. tlwiki is currently excluded from global sysops, but there appears to only be one active administrator. Came across a cross-wiki vandal (w:tl:Special:Contributions/180.251.193.174) that created multiple pages, but as a GS I couldn't delete them. Should tlwiki be added to the wikiset? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[]

As far as I can tell (from checking the log), tlwiki did not specifically choose to opt out. Rather, it was opted out by default because it had multiple active admins. However, in any case, per the GS policy, "inactivity" is defined as not having made a logged action within the past two months. Stewardry indicates that there are more than ten admins, and more than three have made actions within the past two months, so there is no basis in GS policy to opt them in without asking the community. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[]

2020 Persian Wikipedia Advisory Council Election

Hello Stewards,

This is the fifth year that the Persian Wikipedia community is going to hold the election for its Advisory Council (a body similar to the Arbitration Committee) using SecurePoll just like the English Wikipedia Arb Com elections. The arrangements necessary are listed on phab:T262689. What we need from you is two steward volunteers to serve as scrutineers for the election. We would prefer if scrutineers do not have much involvement with fawiki in order to help preserve the integrity of the election. The current timetable will have voting between 23 October and 5 November. We expect a voter turnout of about 100 to 150 users, so the task would not be too time-consuming. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Please {{ping}} me in your responses. Thanks in advance! Huji (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Huji: I'm happy to volunteer. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Huji: I can volunteer too :) --Sotiale (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Martin Urbanec and Sotiale: thank you both. I will keep this thread open in case a third steward wants to volunteer as a backup. Huji (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Huji: I'd be personally happy to have someone familiar with the interface (from past elections perhaps), so we can ask someone if sth is unclear. But if that would be done by some other means, it's fine with me. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@Martin Urbanec: the interface is pretty straightforward, as it relates to your role as a scrutineer. You will have access to the votes + the IP/UA data for each vote. Your task is to ensure that no user has voted twice or voted via a proxy. The first part is relatively easy (SecurePoll itself strikes out votes that are from the same IP and UA as another existing vote) so you just need to double check. The latter part is busier (you need to run the list of all IPs through the proxy check tool). Huji (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Hr wiki checkusers refusing to publish CU check results for admin Kubura

On August 11, a CU request has been made on hr wiki, for admin Kubura and 38 of his sockpuppets. Local CU Vodomar, after waiting full 14 days, finally reluctantly took the case, aledgedly made the check and promised to publish the results soon. He didn't. Instead, he just went missing. He obviously found proofs of Kubura's sockpuppetry and decided to "play dead" until 90 days has passed. Other CU, Ex13, also Kubura's long-time close friend, also conviniently went missing as soon as he was informed about the request on his talk page. Knowing how closely privatelly connected are hr wiki admins and CU's, I can assure you Ex13 is well informed about the CU request, but, knowing how obvious the results are, decided to let the 90 days to pass.

Today, GregorB left a comment on hr wiki RFC, calling for Vodomar to finally publish the CU results.

In case Vodomar and Ex13 keep ignoring the calls to publish the results, can you promise that some of you stewards will step in and make a CU check on hr wiki?

Also, let me remind you that there were numerous calls to finally close the hr wiki RFC and that not only it's still open, but the stewards even ignored the calls to at least explain why they didn't close it yet.

So, can we rely on stewards to make CU check? Or you will keep pretending hr wiki doesn't exist and sockpuppet master/holocaust denier Kubura, together with his protecters hr wiki checkusers, can relax? --Hrwikiuser (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Small wiki audit/Malagasy Wiktionary

The first small wiki audit has been completed, and there has still been zero input from any stewards on the talk page. As there has been some opinion that a small wiki audit is essentially an RFC in a different forum, steward involvement is necessary to bring about a resolution. Metaknowledge (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[]

@Metaknowledge: What exactly are expecting here? As I see it, Small wiki audit is a proposal, with which some have started and run with. I don't see that it has an official standing within the meta or global framework, so there should be no expectation that stewards are monitoring any of it, let alone acting in one small part of it. What actions do you think that stewards can unilaterally take, under which authority? At this point of time, an RFC is the means for the community to act outside of the clear delineation of existing rules, and in this case the community would direct for stewards and global sysops the ability to intervene within the scope of their ability to act. So as I see it, SWA is an investigative act, a poll there at this stage probably would lead to an informative RFC, that could become normative instruction from the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[]
My personal opinion is that the audit should report back to the community that it audited. Has this occurred? The formal response should be aimed at whole community, not targeting their admin. That community should be responding with their opinions and how they may implement the changes. Calling out the stewards at this point as a first response to an investigation seems highly irregular and almost punitive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]

  Comment I have done a review, and I am going to cause waves here. However, I am hoping that my background here, and knowledge of auditing in a professional life can give unadulterated assistance. Fortunately I am not running for any position as some of those who have supported the outcome should actually be ashamed of their imposition of their opinions and lack of balance in requiring a viable audit.

  1. Audit process It is my opinion that at this time there is no defined audit process that looks like an actual audit process that can produce fair reports.
  2. Audit report There is no evident procedural fairness with this audit. There is no evidence that there was impartiality of the auditor, nor checks for balance in the audit process. No evidence that preconceived thoughts taken into the audit were checked and challenged. This is a biased, narrow report that was always going to produce the outcome that was pre-determined.
  3. Partiality I see evidence of a pile-on. I am not saying that the wiki in question does not have faults and could not do with significant improvements. I do not say that they most likely have a single point of control and conflict of interest. The thing is that none of that could be seen to be fairly audited and fairly reported. Partiality going in, ruins a good output.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Steward involvement is still requested, in case anyone is unsure. Metaknowledge (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Metaknowledge: I don't think that there is scope and requirement for a steward's involvement. Generally they would take requests at one of their request pages. Now you are demanding that they come and do what at an audit #notanaudit talk page. The steward's would have what authority to act from that informal discussion? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
(Edit conflict.)To achieve what? This sounds like User talk:-revi/FAQ#desysop -like situation to me. — regards, Revi 11:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@-revi: Can you explain how it's similar? (Billinghurst, I think we can leave it to a steward to explain whether or not a steward should be involved.) Metaknowledge (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
You are asking something beyond what we can do. Let's dive in to the details -
  1. There is no policy with that "Small Wiki Audit". We are the executor of the policy and consensus, not an judge or legislature.
  2. Because of 1, there is no policy or consensus requiring participation of a Steward in response to that "audit". We are not going to do something - anything - if the policy (in the absence of policy, established practices) doesn't back us. (You can't claim a process that is not vetted by RfC or similar process as "established practices".)
In short, you need to get a consensus in support for such practices, probably by the form of RfC. (Also, you are yet to explain why we need to be involved.) — regards, Revi 17:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@-revi: There is no policy, but there is consensus. So the challenge is to transform the expression of consensus into one that policy looks favourably upon. So please, tell me in detail what will be needed beyond the start I have made here: Requests for comment/Large-scale errors at Malagasy Wiktionary. (And this is why we needed a steward — I was misinformed by multiple users about what stewards could and couldn't do!) Metaknowledge (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[]
My take is that there is no consensus to establish "small wiki audit" as a binding process. (Compare Admin activity review (RFC) with this) Given that the page in question is now in RFC page, I think RFC closer will decide the result. (Personally I think this is ultimately up for the local community to decide, and not for Meta RFC.) — regards, Revi 11:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[]
@-revi: I can't find any documentation on when and how RFCs are closed. I'd like to know how I can move forward and avoid this RFC being stuck in limbo for months or years. (As for local decision-making, if you read the report, you will see that there is no local community besides the admin who made the mess in the first place.) Metaknowledge (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[]
You're looking for Requests for comment/Policy. And if there's nobody to clean up the mess locally, my personal opinion is that the wiki should be closed and sent to Incubator, not just "cleaned up" and left unattended. — regards, Revi 17:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[]
I don't think langcom will agree though to a movement to incubator, my 2 cents only. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Yeah, that's my personal opinion - langcom should be MUCH more proactive on closing inactive wikis, but that's just my wish... :P — regards, Revi 17:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[]
A firm result in an RFC puts the bind on LangCom, and should make them accountable and address it within their operating practice. We all should be operating in a reflective reality space rather than a unidirectional philosophical construct. Possibly should be one of the contingent options of an RFC, as an option B. It addresses a whole heap of the existing issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[]