Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2021-02

Clarification on a steward issued restriction

Hello, as now in -revi confirmations, I am aware that it was by unanimous consent that MCC214 is prohibited from editing SRCU. As he had been approaching me on my talkpage for various clarifications and requests with regard to SRCU, am I allowed to communicate with them any further regarding SRCU checks on my talkpage / assist them in explaining checks on SRCU proper. I am doing it for sometime with care but with these, I feel I need stewards confirmation of whether I can continue as usual. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]

They are prohibited from editing SRCU because of their massive Quality Control failure, but it should not affect their ability to edit others' talk pages (or for that matter, zhwiki HAM). — regards, Revi 07:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Noted with thanks @-revi. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Just like I said in there,stewards inaction and made backlog is resulting in this matter,even though I don't do this,but other User still continue do this (It's gonna be awesome,this user have been global lock,because this user have cross-wiki abuse and LTA),source,zh:Special:diff/55964209,zh:Special:diff/55964259)

This is It's gonna be awesome said in [1],

(Please translation it)

……,我曾考慮以後我有需要直接到meta提報即可。因此,難道不會是管理員尸位素餐的工作態度導致MCC逕行到meta轉交CU requests 嗎?

……,您一開始就認定與您看法迴異的 MCC 是在發瘋,如果您一開始就認定他是壞人,那麼我猜您可能也不會有意願試着從MCC的角度來看事情了。我覺得滿可惜的。建議您可以換個角度再想想看,謝謝!

This is the reason on above is mentioned earlier,they don't understand my think what,and the fact is,zh.wiki community is very disagree Revi "It's none of your own" in SRCU.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 17:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 00:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinese Wikipedia community

Hi, our community can't reach a consensus after three stewards have published their confirmation of 蟲蟲飛's usage of sockpuppet, because they can't believe a beloved admin has done such thing. I suggest that ALL stewards should issue a joint confirmation.😂--161.81.166.3 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]

We delivered the news, whatever they do with the information is up to them. CheckUser data is very clear and does not allow any room for AGF or other result. If they want to run 'happiness circuit' and claim her innocence, sure, but if they don't want to believe what Stewards say, I am not sure how they'd trust our result at SRCU? Should we continue checking for zhwiki when they don't trust us? I don't think so. — regards, Revi 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Just as a notice: this user has global renamer right. I do not recommend any action right now as I think we should wait until the discussion settled.--GZWDer (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I received notes that this IP was suspected to be linked to a LTA range which 蟲蟲飛 had blocked before, w:zh:LTA:LHKS. This might be a global lock evasion as the main account is globally locked. Anyway, whatsoever 3 stewards had issued confirmations based on CU data, clearly ALL stewards do not need to give confirmations. Anyway, meta isn't an appeal court, if the community doesn't take action, it's the community desire and we can't override here. If you think there are gross abuses, please feel free to use an account which qualifies to start a RFC based on RFC/Policy. I don't see what else this thread can achieve at this moment, and I don't see the relevance of her global renamer status in this local situation. I had reviewed the renames and had raised some concerns with her, and the reasons seems acceptable, so I don't see GZWDer point either. Shall we close this thread which isn't going anyway and might be created by a possible lock evader. Let the local community do what they want is the best at this moment. My 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I am from zh wiki and am a bit bewildered here, in the confirmations it is reported that 蟲蟲飛 has been using a sockpuppet (single IP) which triggered the Abuse Filter and thus the IP is blocked, however 蟲蟲飛 claims that he doesn't have any (single) IP in use that is blocked. This somehow is conflicted so I wonder if there are more solid proofs that she may be lying. Btw she also claims that she before might have used some IP to test for the abuse filter in zh wiki, which results in the IP being banned (note that ban is not equivalent to block in zh wiki), therefore I am asking if it is possible to provide more further proofs or explanations as the current accusation are not clear enough in term of details. StevenM69 (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    I guess you wonder whether the AF literally "blocked" or just "disallow" / "warn" -ed the IP? -- 94rain Talk 05:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    Everything that could be revealed without breaking policies has already been revealed. It would be better if she would stop making excuses one after another. Also, even if we assume what she says is true, there is some problem if an admin accuses and blames others using IPs to test a filter. As far as I can tell, nothing more can be provided. Stewards have nothing to gain from blaming an admin there, and logs don't lie. Anyone with access to tools can verify that information.
I would recommend the community to stop doubting the information because there are bodies like OMBCOM, who monitor CU activities. If you feel like stewards are being untrue about the reports, feel free to reach them. And instead, focus on what to do about it. It was our job to inform the community about this, which we did. Now, I want no part in whatever the community decides, as this is above my paygrade. Thank you!-BRP ever 07:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Alright understandable, I just want to be careful especially when there are conflicted statements, afterall this is something needed to be handled carefully, sorry for bothering but wanted to make everything sure. StevenM69 (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I think this can be resolved, 蟲蟲飛 local desysop was rejected with 15/66/24 (S/O/N) locally. For Global Renamer, it needs a RFC to remove and if GZWDer wants they can review the need to start one or not. I will think the local community had decided to keep the sysop rights, we are done here?Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Global lock request for Opensourceduser.

The user could be a possible block evasion account of another user, insults as seen in this edit summary, and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done by Ruslik0. In the future, lock requests are generally made at SRG. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]

phab:T275960

Can some stewards check the hidden/oversight status?--GZWDer (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Adding barwiki to GS wikiset

Please add barwiki to the global sysops wikiset

  • It falls within the scope of GS wikis, with only one active admin recently, and only 4 total admins (not counting the abuse filter account)
  • It did not explicitly opt out of GS, and is not listed at Global sysops/Local discussions

Its appears to have been excluded from the wikiset since the wikiset it was created in Special:Redirect/logid/1068755 - I guess at that time it had more admins that it does now?

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@WikiBayer: Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]

We have never had a local discussion about this. So far we haven't had a problem with tasks being left undone due to inactive admins. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  Done This wiki meets Global_sysops#Scope, and has no opt-out criteria. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Proposal: Add autopatrol to global interface editors

Hello, global interface editors group is granted to people doing CSS/JS maintenance at many wikis. It probably makes sense to give them +autopatrol, similar to how we already autopatrol global rollbackers. What do you think? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Makes sense to me. I mean global sysops also have rights to edit the interface on a specific set of wiki's and they have autopatrol. It seems more than logical for me that this should be added to this group aswell. Wiki13 (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes it make sense. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree with you. There's no need to patrol their edits. --Superpes15 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[]

  Comment But why? What issue are we managing? If they are editing in the Mediawiki: namespace they clearly have elevated rights. If they are editing in the content namespaces they are typically just contributors and contributing per the wiki's rules and settings.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]

There is no "issue", just eases the load on others. I don't see a problem with the proposal. Leaderboard (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
I see billinghurst's point here. It benefits a project for a Global Rollbacker, or Global Sysop, to have autopatrol as they are often working in the content namespace. That's much more unlikely for an interface editor. I don't see a big problem giving it but equally I'm not seeing a huge benefit in doing so either. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Can't see why this is needed; content wikis may use patrolling as part of new content page review - while it should be beyond doubt that a GIE isn't going to for example create a malicious article on an encyclopedia project, if they do create an article it shouldn't bypass that project's review workflow. GIE's are selected based on their special technical acumen and trust - not based on their content or language style skills. — xaosflux Talk 15:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    Then maybe we should remove autopatrol from global rollback as well? I proposed it, because I noticed that GIE's edits aren't marked as patrolled, and I know that other global groups have htis right :).
    On the other hand, I see @Billinghurst's and @Xaosflux's points here :/. Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Martin Urbanec: this sounded familiar - see also Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2020-06#Why_does_global_rollback_include_autopatrol? for a lot longer discussion about that topic. — xaosflux Talk 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    I think the issue is on the patrol process itself, there are wikis who only patrol page creations but others patrol every edit (like meta). For the former, +autopatrol is useless as most interface edits aren't page creations, for the latter then this will have some utility, given the recent interface edits, in some small wikis the whole RC is GIE edits, it might cause patrollers there hard to catch up. Having autopatrol also might reduces potential misconception, as if someone see a newbie who edit their interface, they might tend to react in shock (c.f. Operator873 being blocked due to him deleting pages in a wiki - but then GS too have autopatrol - but there is somewhat an analogy). I don't think we have to add autopatrol but I don't oppose either. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    You make a good point on whether it is useful to grant the global interface editor group the autopatrol user right on content wikis when they typically only edit in MediaWiki namespace, but I'm just wondering if maybe we could approach this in different way. Perhaps we could establish an opt out WikiSet and delay implementation of the autopatrol user right to the group by, say, 60-90 days from the close of this discussion to allow wikis decide whether they want to opt out of the global interface editor user group? Dmehus (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    TBH, this sounds like too much bureaucracy for little (to no) gain. — regards, Revi 16:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    optout for autorpatrol??? Unnecessary effort. Autopatrol has little effect and abuse of this right is very unlikely in such a high user group. Whether it is really necessary now is difficult to say, but I think someone who is allowed to edit JS does not have to be checked during normal editing.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 11:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    Ability to edit JS does not necessarily correlate with building content pages. Doesn’t have to be malicious to be problematic or require work, could be entirely good faith. On enwiki a bot unpatrols GR autopatrolled edits iirc, though. And since GR already has this, adding it to GIE doesn’t really do much harm. Though, I’m not sure how it helps either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]

As a general comment, the English Wikisource manages its autopatrolling rights based on competency in various namespaces, not trust alone, and would not want to have that overridden globally.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)   no consensus  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Global lock request for this account.

I don't plan on using this account anymore as I have been currently active with my other account, DarkMatterMan4500. So could you please lock this account? Zangoose&SeviperMan4055 (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[]

For clarification, I am only requesting for my Zangoose&SeviperMan4055 account to be locked, not my 2nd account. Don't get confused. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[]
(non-steward comment) You can put global lock requests at Steward requests/Global in the future, the centralized place for such requests. Make sure your requests follow Global_locks#Reasons_to_request_a_global_lock. If I remember correctly, self-requested global locks are generally not proceeded by stewards. --94rain Talk 15:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Updates on Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies

Hello stewards. Liuxinyu970226 (thanks again) added information for some Chinese wikis. These are the Chinese Wikipedia and the Chinese Wiktionary. I made a small edit according to policy on zhwiki and removed the zhwikt from this list as Chinese Wiktionary does not have its own policy. Whether these wikis were affected by AAR was already known. It may be good to check the information added as stewards. Regards. --Uncitoyentalk 07:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Ah, thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Uncitoyen: And I also updated zhwikinews, zhwikisource and zhwikivoyage, am I wrong? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks @Liuxinyu970226:. As far as I checked with the Google Translate (because I don't know Chinese), you added it correctly. Also hello @Openbk:. You may want to indicate that zhwikisource is exempt from AAR on your list2. It would be better that the stewards to confirm these informations. --Uncitoyentalk 11:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes and thx, the Chinese Wikisource policy on de-adminships has been approved per consensus. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[]

2021 Steward elections results

The 2021 Steward elections have ended today (14:00 UTC). The Election Committee, after verifying the votes, has announced the final results. The following 5 candidates were elected:

  1. AmandaNP (talk · contribs)
  2. Operator873 (talk · contribs)
  3. Stanglavine (talk · contribs)
  4. Teles (talk · contribs)
  5. Wiki13 (talk · contribs)

We 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 relevant global election. Also we wish to thank all the other volunteers who helped in the coordination of the process.

The results of the 2021 Stewards confirmation will be determined in the upcoming days.

For the Election Committee, RadiX 17:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[]

Are the results of the confirmations able to be shared at this point?  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[]
@Billinghurst Based on Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2021, it seems that all existing stewards (except rxy) was confirmed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[]
And then they should be shared like the election results were.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh, I get what you are saying now. I had raised this to Electcom. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[]