Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2020-10

Global sysops Inactivity policy

The last action form User:Aldnonymous was on 2020-03-27 [1]. He is since over 6 month inactive --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 07:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

@WikiBayer: I think this can file as removal under SRP. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 06:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Steward inactivity

Hi. Per Stewards#Removal of access "Stewards are automatically removed for inactivity if they have performed no actions within the past six months, and less than ten actions within the last year." - based on public meta logs Pmlineditor (talkemailcontributionsdeleted contributionsall logsblocksdeletionsprotections) appears to have performed no such actions, but since there are actions that are not publicly logged on meta (eg lwcu, otrs ticket handling, emergency actions on other wikis) that might count as steward actions for activity purposes, I thought I'd ask for a steward to check if they still meet the activity threshold for maintaining steward rights. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]

  •   Comment per this and lwcu log, last action on 2019 --Alaa :)..! 20:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]
    • There is significant ambiguity in the policy (especially since loginwiki came into existence well after that part of the policy was written). The last time a steward was removed under this was Wikitanvir in 2015 I believe. But if nothing else turns up, this particular case seems to be pretty clear-cut. --Rschen7754 20:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Update: running a script on toolforge to check activity on all wikis, since there may be emergency steward actions --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Global latest edits/log actions:

formatted into a table using regex replacements (\n(Could not|Make sure|ERROR 1044).* -> (empty string), \n\S+\s+actor_id.* -> (empty string), \n(\S+)\s+\d+\s+Pmlineditor\s+(\d+)\s+(\d+) -> \n|-\n| $1 || $2 || $3).

The table can be sorted by last edit or log entry. Hope this helps, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]

  CommentPresuming that rights changes will show in the logs, then someone will need to look at checkuser and oversight logs, including loginwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Loginwiki doesn't have any recent entries, and CUing/OSing anywhere else needs to show in the logs somewhere. The normal way is changing your own rights via Meta, but all other ways (incl. global group rights changes or promoting you to steward locally, and then changing rights somewhere else) needs to show in your public logs somewhere. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]


  Not done Formally speaking, Pmlineditor is uneligble for being un-stewardshipped under the inactivity policy. While they made zero actions in past six months, they made more than 10 actions in the past year (a handful of locks from Special:Log/Pmlineditor, dating 25 December 2019). The policy says: "Stewards are automatically removed for inactivity if they have performed no actions within the past six months, and less than ten actions within the last year.". Closing as not done. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Ah, I missed that, sorry DannyS712 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Is it possible to vanish from one wiki and keep the name at others?

Sorry if I posted at wrong noticeboard,I didn’t knew where to post.--Yaratmayıcı (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[]

No. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Requests for comment/Slowking4

Requests for comment/Slowking4 was originally created as a global ban request, and has now been re-scoped into an RfC on a single user. Since only stewards should be closing global ban requests, can someone take a look at the page, specifically Requests for comment/Slowking4#Call for procedural close? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Was closed by Ruslik0 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Enwiki ArbCom election scrutineer request

Good evening stewards, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are coming up (running from 23 November 2020 to 7 December 2020), and we are looking for non-enwiki stewards to act as election scrutineers. A list of scrutineer duties can be found here. Please feel free to let me or another member of the electoral commission know if you have any questions. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]

@GeneralNotability: I'm not sure what's exactly the criteria for "non-home wiki" (I have about 4k of edits there and I'm eligible to vote), but if that's fine, count me in. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]
@Martin Urbanec: - I don't think you primarily edit enwiki - so that shouldn't be an issue. SQLQuery me! 16:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]
I had about 6k edits when I did it in 2018. (And still somewhere 6k.) Shouldn't be a problem. — regards, Revi 10:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[]
@GeneralNotability: I'd be happy to volunteer :) —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 11:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]
like many years, I would be happy if I could assist enwiki Mardetanha talk 09:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish were appointed/confirmed by local arbcom, see w:Special:Diff/984568965, and have been granted checkuser rights for this purpose, see Special:Diff/20556497. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Requests for comment/Global ban of James Salsman

Unless we're trying to go for a world record of unanimous support to globally ban an editor or something, this should probably be closed. –MJLTalk 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

@MJL: I will hope it's a month but per policy 2 weeks - 1 month is acceptable. Consensus is quite clear. However, not a sysop or crat can implement the outcome, although many are stewards, but this seems better on SN. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]
@Camouflaged Mirage:   Moved here –MJLTalk 17:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Noted. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

  Done I've read the RFC, and closed the request as successful. Consequently, I've globally locked his accounts I'm aware of. Any other accounts may be reported at SRG. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Need assistance posting a link to RFC in Russian Wikipedia

The link to Requests for comment/IP editors are auto-blocked on Russian Wikipedia to be posted on w:ru:Википедия:Форум/Общий please.

My own IP is blocked on ruwiki for attempting to edit without logging in, as described in the RFC. --Crash48 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

You can post it yourself as you are registered now. Ruslik (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Of course not: my account is not exempt from IP blocks. --Crash48 (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[]
@Crash48: If it is due to a local IP block, then you will need to resolve that issue with ruwiki. If it is due to a steward's IP block, then please see global IP block exemptions then follow the instruction at SRGP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Closing Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia

Consensus is for oppose, and the recent activity on this RfC is not what it was on June. I think this RfC is a distraction for recent issues like Scots Wikipedia controversy. As such I'm here to get this RfC closed. Thanks. SMB99thx 13:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Pinging MF-Warburg and Vermont. SMB99thx 12:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[]
I have commented on that and on related pages with a specific point of view, so I’m not going to be the one to close it. However, I will note that we don’t determine the validity of closing one RfC by the existence of other, subjectively more important, RfCs. It’s not as though there’s one contiguous community with only one object of attention. There’s dozens of RfCs currently open, and individual editors determine if they want to comment on any of them, and if so which ones they want to participate in. The RfC being open for a while with little activity is a reason to close, but the “distraction” statement would be an incredibly dangerous and misinformed precedent to set. Regardless, an uninvolved admin or stew will get to closing it at some point. Vermont (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[]
I don't think an RFC can be closed for being a "distraction". However, the entire branding project that this was a response to is on hold until March, so I think closing it is a good idea. --Yair rand (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[]

  Done though not drawing a conclusion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Harassment and admin abuse in Wikiquote

I don't know were to report this but I were been recieving harassment by an user from Australia, TVEBOR and 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35), for a year now. The accounts were banned by ~riley for sockpupetry. Other users that were targeted by this IP have been Peter1 and DawgDeputy. Now the harasser has comeback and UDScott has ban me for revert the block evasions. I reported in the Administrator noticeboard several times that he was doing block evasion (Q:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/036#TVEBOR block evasion and Q:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/036#TBlock evasion by TVEBOR). Also, I reported to UDScott in the past several times, in his talk page I did it in 15 January 2020. And recently during the recent controversy in which admin decided to cherrypick a policy, WQ:Q because he "assumed bad faith" on me. I have a discussion recently on this with Koavf on if I should make a report on that controversy, which I did here. The harassment during the year affected me in all the Wikiprojects in which I participated, I become paranoid and temperamental and I want this to stop but I don't know how so I request assistance to solve the issue. Rupert loup (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]

  Comment Admin abuse??? You have 300 reverts at this day. This is a big Editwar. Why didn't you wait for the IP to be blocked?--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
WikiBayer The IP was blocked after months of harassing, it was only blocked after it created that account TVEBOR because Peter1 told him that he should registered. And the IP changed after minutes, it was never range blocked before the sockpupetry. At first I discussed it in talk pages and in the noticeboard. Admins never took action more than block the page were the IP was participating. I lost interest in discuss after admins ignore us and our reports, after that I just came accustomed to revert it on spot. There is no much discussion in WQ in general and admins usually ignore the issue. ~riley was who tried to bring the 3 revert policy in WQ, a blow of fresh air. But I think that he gave up after a month or two. I didn't see admins discussing the issue after that. I tried to bring the issue on warring recently. Nobody cared. That is how discussion is in WQ. Rupert loup (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Also the IP was reported and still was not blocked, only I was blocked for revert a block evasion. You don't see UDScott or any admin discussing the issue there, as is the norm. So I think that responds the question on why I didn't wait for the IP to be blocked. Rupert loup (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
WikiBayer I'm not trying to sound rude, that's the best that I can express myself right now given my frustration. Rupert loup (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
@Rupert loup: This is a matter for English Wikiquote, and them alone. They are a fully formed community and able to resolve issues. Not certain why you think anywhere else should be intervening in these issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
billinghurst The IP's harassment has been leaked to Wikipedia also, and the IP is also back there. As I said this affected my work and my behavior in all the Wikiprojects. Rupert loup (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Work with the local communities, there is nothing that stewards or global sysops can do to resolve your local issues. Our roles are not to be involved with local content issues. Your communities have the tools to manage these as they see them to be managed, and to escalate to stewards as they need to do so. Please read Stewards and Global sysops and tell us where it gives us any role in what you are mentioning or authority to intervene.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Spoiler alert: "Stewards are also not arbitrators or mediators; to resolve a conflict on a small project, please attempt local resolution, and file a request for comment on Meta-Wiki if local resolution cannot be achieved." Your wiki is not small but still, we are not your arbitrator. We can't solve your problem. — regards, Revi 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
What a request for comment will do to stop the harassment by the IP? Rupert loup (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
You asking here wouldn't stop it either, because we are not going to do anything for you here. — regards, Revi 21:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
-revi and billinghurst: You already did something for me, thank you for your help. I tried to maintain WQ neutral, balanced and accurate but as you said if the community don't care I can do much about it. I'm not into modern politics, they bore me to death, I tried to balance the different POVs to gave them fair and accurate representation in WQ but with the amount of people (from all the political spectrum) adding random content from what it seems social media and blogs they have made the project in a troll magnet and full of toxicity. What I really hold dearly are the policies of WQ, those are which shaped my personal POV, and it breaks my heart that they are disregarded as they are there. I bet that this will get worse when the different POVs will start collide in the next months, with all the World political context and such. I have a strong feeling that it will happen. If that is the direction that the community want for the project so be it. I already stopped having fun long ago there so this is what I need to let it go. Rupert loup (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Everything concerning the IP must be clarified on local projekt. Please don't feed trolls with editwars. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Inactive administrators

Elwikisource: AndreasJS

Elwikibooks: Vsvlachos

Elwikiversity: ZaDiak 2A02:587:5400:6501:F875:E23A:E9DF:6AA9 20:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

  Not done Individual cases should be managed on individual wikis in line with their processes. Global processes occur separately and not via this page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia

Link: Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia

After acquainting myself with this case over the last couple of months, I think there is a path forward through desysopping/blocking some key problematic editors, reversing some other blocks, and developing a guidance document for dealing with Croatian history that could be enforced through request to GS or stewards if local admins are unwilling to enforce (GS if it is decided to make hrwiki a gs wiki for the purposes of enforcing the guideline, but that might be outside of their scope).

My question for stewards is this: how clear-cut does this need to be for you to feel comfortable acting? I'm going to try to limit the nonsense that has plagued the RfC to date by introducing some strict guidance on how the final discussion is conducted, and focus more on getting the global community's input. I know there aren't many incentives for stewards to actually implement these sort of things, but I think this is a significant and ongoing issue, and that a solution (or at least action in the right direction) is possible. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note this is not a place for unrestricted discussion, but a place to notify stewards about an issue, or consult stewards. Please discuss the closing motion in the RfC itself. Once sufficiently discussed, you are free to leave us a note, so we can have a look. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[]