Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2020-12


Hi. After spending way too much time looking through the archives, I've finally finished reconstructing a timeline of global rollbackers, available at Template:GlobalRollbackersChart. I'd be grateful if stewards could update it when granting/revoking global rollback going forward. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Sure, will try to remember this! Thanks for making the table, Danny. Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Good work Danny! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
No problem, happy to help DannyS712 (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Eihel's captcha-exempt global group

Global rollbacker also have skipcaptcha right. So this group is duplicate. Please remove it. (`・ω・´) (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]

@-akko: What is the fuss? If it changes nothing, then it becomes effort for no value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. The user already has global rollback, which also includes captcha-exempt permission. So this user group is unnecessary for him. Is there any problem? (`・ω・´) (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
@-akko: There is no problem, so why direct stewards to remove it. It solves no problems, it makes nothing better, easier, or anything. It is valueless tidying.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  Not done. Global rollback indeed has the skipcaptcha permission but it is also a user group that is subject to some activity requirements. If one day Eihel decides to step down as a global rollbacker or is removed due to inactivity, he can still benefit from the captcha-exempt group for the tasks he mentioned when he was appointed to the CAPTCHA exemption global group. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Talk:Steward requests/Global

Frequently vandalized by Wikimedianism LTA (a recent LTA that seems to came in as a result of Kubura dispute). Consider (fully) protecting this page. Thank you, SMB99thx 06:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Nah, we just manage it, they are going to vandalise somewhere anyway.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello, I would like to make a fresh start

Good evening. I don't know good English. I would like you to help me with something. My account has been locked completely because I was vandalized but I would like to make a fresh start. Please can you give me a chance and I promise to contribute from now on by following the instructions of all wikis.—2A02:587:5429:632D:1118:A452:733A:EC4F 17:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Please email stewards wikimedia org  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Steward's abuse of power

A steward goes directly against another wiki's consensus (unanimous consensus) and refuses to discuss. My request meets many criteria according to the crat guideline. The steward fails the basics of common sense. Instead of granting me the crat right, he suggested other solutions that could take a year or longer to resolve. This is going against the project's interest and damaging the project's growth. I've been an admin on that wiki for 9 years and 12 years of contributing to Wikipedia. See here. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]

I don't see any issue here and I say that as a normal user. The steward policy mentions also this: "If there are any doubts as to whether or not an action should be performed stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it." I don't see how this steward or any other on that page for that matter refuses to dicuss or fails the basics of common sense. Their arguments make sense (to me they do, at the very least) and are in my opinion a valid reason to not grant the rights. There is no abuse here to be seen. --Wiki13 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
There is no abuse, and it's been already explained to you why. Saying that you're right doesn't make it so. Please follow the instructions to de-crat the remaining local bureaucrat instead.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 15:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
De-crating is a very cumbersome process that is not easy to carry through. The community may not want to de-crat someone just because of one isolated incident or lack of communication. Let's say the community doesn't want to de-crat him because he hasn't done anything serious enough, and stewards are not allowed to promote users on projects with existing bureaucrats. Next, you guys also refused my request for crat right, so what do I suppose to do with new vi-wiktionary sysops elected by the community? How long do they have to wait until they are granted adminship? Or it will never happen? Why don't you guys just give me the crat right and solve all this mess right now? What bothering me is that you guys are refusing to solve the problem and suggesting a difficult solution when an easy solution is available. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict x2) Jumping straight to abuse claims must be supported by policy and evidence, which is not in this case. This is regarding Special:Permalink/20863174#Nguyentrongphu@vi.wiktionary.
On December 3, 2020 you were told by Base that vi.wiktionary has a local bureaucrat (mxn) and that said local bureaucrat is per policy reponsible to grant permissions. Yesterday you asked us to promote you for local bureaucrat status. Martin Urbanec initially refused. You pinged half the stewards team, and later Sakretsu and myself refused again on several policy grounds. Rschen7754 later shared his thoughts about the validity of the votes of the participants due to very low edit count and canvassing. Now while it is true that stewards are not to override consensus, we are also not allowed to promote users on projects with existing bureaucrats. It is also stated in the stewards' policy that "[i]f there are any doubts as to whether or not an action should be performed, stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it." (emphasis is mine).
Your situation is not an emergency nor requires immediate action. The situation is also not clear on our side and Mxn is per policy not inactive. He editted vi.wiktionary last month (Nov. 5, 2020) and he is actively editting elsewhere as recently as today. Why shall we infringe upon our own policies and long-standing agreed practices? IAR is not carte blanche for us to do as we please, as we are not dictators nor pretend to be. I respectfully suggest again that you all try to contact Mxn via talk page or email and ask them to close the RfA/B. I also suggest again that if the vi.wiktionary community feels for whatever reason that Mxn is not discharging his bureaucrat duties appropriately, said community is entitled to vote for his de-bureaucratship according to the local voting rules if they exist. As courtesy to you, despite some unfair and false edit summaries (see Meta:Civility) I'll email Mxn myself so he's aware of this, and can decide what to do. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • First issue: my request for crat right was rejected by a personal judgement when I meet other criteria outlined in the guideline such as 17 votes (clear consensus), should have at least 2 crats (we already have 1 crat!) and at least 6 permanent sysops.
I'm claiming abuse of power at the rejection of my request, not the closure at SRP (I took that back after realizing stewards have the right to close SRP as they wish).
My request was rejected on the basis of wiki not "large enough". That is an inaccurate personal judgement. If the wiki was not "large enough" then how did we get 1 crat in the first place? The guideline also says that there should be at least 2 crats.
I pinged some stewards, not half. "Sakretsu and myself refused again on several policy grounds" which policy is that?
Claiming low edit count is absurd. "All of them" each has at least a few thousands up to tens of thousands of edits and many years of experience on Vi Wikipedia (even multiple sysops from Vi Wikipedia voted for me). Vi Wikipedia community is local by extension with its sister project Vi Wiktionary.
I did not canvass. According to this canvassing guideline, "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!" I sent the messages out in mass number (nonpartisan users) with neutral wording, and most users that received the message did not go vote for me nor did they oppose (some chose to do it because they know me from prior interaction in Vi Wikipedia).
  • Second issue: there have been multiple new vi-wiktionary sysops being elected over many months, and no one is available to grant them the adminship in accordance to the community's consensus. If the only crat doesn't grant adminship to anyone, why can't the community get a new second crat?
I've been trying to reach Mxn for months regarding new vi-wiktionary sysops through email + messages on Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wiktionary, and he doesn't respond. He is actively editing, but he just doesn't respond for whatever reason. Steward Base also tried to contact Mxn through fb and also failed. Please go ahead and email him, and if Mxn continues to not respond, what do you suggest that we do next? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
What's the difference between "I claimed abuse of power at the rejection of my request" and "I claimed abuse of power at the closure at SRP"? It's the same thing. --MF-W 19:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm contesting Martin Urbanec's decision of refusing my request. MarcoAurelio closed SRP to prevent further discussion over there -> I'm not contesting about this. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Never mind. I was just granted crat's right. I think all discussions can be dropped here. I have no reason to argue anymore. Thank you for at least discuss it out! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Just to clarify that I closed the discussion at SRP when it started to get off-topic. I am glad that this got resolved locally. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Hi everyone, sorry for being the cause of this uncomfortable situation here on Meta and for being hard to reach in general. I've been swamped by off-wiki life and happened to catch MarcoAurelio's e-mail by accident. I've made Nguyentrongphu a bureaucrat to prevent future backlogs. I feel a lot better about having someone to back me up on the Vietnamese Wiktionary when I'm taking a wikibreak or, like now, am struggling to catch up. Sorry again for the noise, and I'll try to be more accessible going forward. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[]