Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2021-11
| Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in November 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Question to scrutineers
Just wondering, do you run the Checkusers on loginwiki/votewiki or on the local project? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like you got your reply on enwiki, but for the sake of record, votewiki access allows unrestricted access to voter data, and checks are only run on enwiki when socking behavior is found from there. — regards, Revi 01:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 01:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Stephensuleeman, RIP
Our colleague User:Stephensuleeman has sadly died (reported here: [1]); please lock their user page, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Already done by Bsadowski1. Rest in peace. stanglavine msg 00:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: stanglavine msg 00:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Update on Opted-out of global sysop wikis
I suggest updating the list as follows. I didn't include wikis that were previously opted-in or opted-out by local community decision according to the log. I've set them according to the List of ... on Meta. Local wikis with more or less than 10 admins may change from time to time if there is no local community decision according to Global sysops process.
Opted-out wikis
shwiki – 12 admins
bewiki – 10 admins
hywiki – 11 admins
uzwiki – 11 admins
astwiki – 10 admins
swwiki – 14 admins (this wiki has been removed from the list because it wasn't active before.)
itwikiquote – 11 admins
eswikisource – 10 admins
arwikisource – 10 admins
dewikiversity – 12 admins
dewikivoyage – 13 admins
Opted-in wikis
bswiki – 9 admins
skwiki – 9 admins
glwiki - 7 admins
kawiki – 4 admins
lmowiki – 8 admins
dewikibooks – 8 admins
frwikibooks – 7 admins
plwikiquote - 8 admins
cswiktionary – 4 admins
Regards. --Uncitoyentalk 12:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do you suggest that we remove the wikis in the first list and add wikis in the second list? Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest add the wikis in the first list to the set, and remove the wikis in the second list from the set. You'd better double-check these wikis to make sure they're not inaccurate in terms of admin numbers or local community decision. --Uncitoyentalk 07:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- cswiktionary has opted out per Global sysops/Local discussions. --Rschen7754 18:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- And the policy for opting out should be more than a local discussion, there needs to be some performance criteria and minimum numbers; as similarly there should be automatic points where opt-out ceases. Probably needs a range of minimum and maximums for these to happen. This is a problem that is next cab off the rank for solving after 10+ years deteriorating. We fixed standards for AAR and this should follow a similar path. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would definitely support opening a global RfC to better clarify policy on how specific projects can opt in or out of the GS wikiset. Vermont (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- We need a two-prong strategy: 1) enforce the rules that we already have, which is <10 admins or <3 active admins AND no opt-out. Stewards (admittedly including myself when I was one) were reluctant to enforce the <10 admins part of it, but GS says they can. 2) open a RFC to address these issues that have come up. What if they opt out but then all the admins go inactive? What if a project hits 0 admins? What sort of consensus (i.e. number of votes) is needed to go one way or the other? --Rschen7754 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- The way that the GS page is written they are separate paragraphs and talk about the operation of the people, and how to remove a wiki. I don't see that there is anything to impose which is why I think we need some criteria at which A) a wiki can consider whether to start an OPT-OUT discussion. Then B) some criteria by which a wiki needs to maintain that OPT-OUT. Now whether A = B or A > B is a matter for such an RFC. Similarly, whether it is automatic fallback when the criteria is passed, or it is something that is checked once a year. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Per GS#Scope, 'By default, global sysops may use this global user group's permissions on wikis that meet one or both of the following criteria: fewer than ten administrators exist; or fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months. The set is not mentioned here and is only a technical means used to implement this. I don't see any problem with enforcing the criteria, and the fewer than three administrators criterion was enforced multiple times over the last several years. --Rschen7754 06:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- The way that the GS page is written they are separate paragraphs and talk about the operation of the people, and how to remove a wiki. I don't see that there is anything to impose which is why I think we need some criteria at which A) a wiki can consider whether to start an OPT-OUT discussion. Then B) some criteria by which a wiki needs to maintain that OPT-OUT. Now whether A = B or A > B is a matter for such an RFC. Similarly, whether it is automatic fallback when the criteria is passed, or it is something that is checked once a year. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- We need a two-prong strategy: 1) enforce the rules that we already have, which is <10 admins or <3 active admins AND no opt-out. Stewards (admittedly including myself when I was one) were reluctant to enforce the <10 admins part of it, but GS says they can. 2) open a RFC to address these issues that have come up. What if they opt out but then all the admins go inactive? What if a project hits 0 admins? What sort of consensus (i.e. number of votes) is needed to go one way or the other? --Rschen7754 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would definitely support opening a global RfC to better clarify policy on how specific projects can opt in or out of the GS wikiset. Vermont (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- And the policy for opting out should be more than a local discussion, there needs to be some performance criteria and minimum numbers; as similarly there should be automatic points where opt-out ceases. Probably needs a range of minimum and maximums for these to happen. This is a problem that is next cab off the rank for solving after 10+ years deteriorating. We fixed standards for AAR and this should follow a similar path. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- cswiktionary has opted out per Global sysops/Local discussions. --Rschen7754 18:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest add the wikis in the first list to the set, and remove the wikis in the second list from the set. You'd better double-check these wikis to make sure they're not inaccurate in terms of admin numbers or local community decision. --Uncitoyentalk 07:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do these numbers include temporal admins? Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ruslik0: there is no temporary admins on wikis where they are in first list. I looked it on theirs' Special:ListAdmins. --Uncitoyentalk 18:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
2021 Chinese Wikipedia Trial Voting Decision Elections
Hi Stewards,
This is 1233 from the Chinese Wikipedia Community.
After the recent office actions, there is a dire need to improve local Wikipedia election integrity, and that the use of SecurePoll for administrator elections is seen to be one of them, and gained most traction. However, due to the nature of testing new tools, some local members are worried about the elections, such that the local community decided to host a trial run of the elections to both decide whether such tool should be trialed, and whether such tool is an effective tool to prevent election irregularities. All the necessary arrangements are listed on phab:T295518.
We will need two steward volunteers to serve as scrutineers for the election, with preference for the lack of interaction with zhwiki community to preserve election integrity.
The current timeline will be in between Nov 11 - Dec 25. The turnout will be unpredictable, but according to past elections on non-controversial topics, it will not exceed 200. This task should not be time-consuming. Please feel free to leave a message on the talk page if you have any questions.
Link to local discussion page. 1233 （T / C） 02:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, fortunately I don't fall under the conditions you put forward? ;) --Sotiale (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- lol yes--1233 （T / C） 03:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Stewards, According to the rather tight timeline on phab, we still need two brave stewards as scrutineers for this secure poll experiment for zhwiki community. This should be decided before November 28. We would really appreciate it if you would like to join. Stang 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Stang, any update(s) here? --Alaa :)..! 21:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- @علاء: well, don't worry, T&S said they will take care of this. Stang 21:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Stang, I'll close this section now. If there's a need for another steward, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Alaa :)..! 21:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- @علاء: well, don't worry, T&S said they will take care of this. Stang 21:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Stang, any update(s) here? --Alaa :)..! 21:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 21:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
There are 2 edit requests for IA to fulfill, before actioning I would like to hear stewards opinions as these changes are to gblock interfaces. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Implemented due to close to 20 days without oppose and a favorable support. Do revert if any steward deemed disruptive to workflow. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)