Talk:Stewards/Archive 5

Active discussions
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

global vs local stewards?

Hi im just wondering, There is a "global group" of stewards while a "local meta steward" group. Whats the difference? MechQuester (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Local steward group have the following rights:
  • Create or modify global abuse filters (abusefilter-modify-global)
  • Edit all user rights (userrights)
  • Edit user rights of users on other wikis (userrights-interwiki)
  • Lock or unlock global account (centralauth-lock)
  • Make and remove global blocks (globalblock)
  • Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
  • Rename global accounts (centralauth-rename)
  • Suppress or hide global account (centralauth-oversight)
  • Unmerge global account (centralauth-unmerge)

These rights are only used on meta. The global steward group does not have these rights, but have various rights and global steward group can modify the global groups of all users and add rights on the global groups. --Ks-M9 [disc.] 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC).

Ah, I understand. Thank you. MechQuester (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
To add some reasoning to the technical facts, we have it separated this way for a reason. Things in the Meta group are functions that we expect to be done from Meta - editing user rights, globally blocking, etc. This is done for transparency, so all those actions are centralized here. The global group is for permissions that need to be individually held on each wiki, such as block/delete and all of the passive rights for viewing deleted or suppressed content. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Female stewards

Are there female stewards of wikimedia?--WDCDECDCDC (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

hmm im indeed genuinely curious as to what interest one may have in making that inquiry, i.e. can you elaborate on the fundaments of that question? just a passing interest97.90.91.57 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello I don't have any answer to give Abdulshakur Binji (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Block log change

Hi, Are Stewards able to change block log reasons ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No. --MF-W 14:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
MF-Warburg - So can anyone edit it no?, Point is I was blocked for an incorrect reason & was hoping it could be changed, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 00:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
No, log entries cannot be edited. It is possible however to change incorrect block reasons by unblocking a user and reblocking him with a corrected reason. --MF-W 08:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah I did think that to be honest, Okie dokie thanks for your help much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 15:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

How steward permissions can be given?

To be a steward, you must have attached accounts from all wikis in all languages? 23:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Anchor for list of Stewards

Could someone with insight add an anchor for the section with the stewards’ list working in all languages, please? I know for an overview I could link to [[:m:Special:ListUsers/steward]], but there is no way to get the count. {{NUMBERINGROUP:steward}} does not work from other wikis. — Speravir (talk– 22:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that you can do this without using API. Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Do you misunderstand me? The reason for asking for an anchor (it should work by adding one outside of the translate tag) is, because it does not work. With the anchor I could link to the section with the count using [[Special:MyLanguage/Stewards#$anchor]]. API may work (though I do not know how), but is not that nice for interproject linking. — Speravir (talk– 18:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done: Special:MyLanguage/Stewards#list. Stryn (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Nice. Thank you, Stryn. — Speravir (talk– 22:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
As I understood you asked for an interwiki equivalent of {{NUMBERINGROUP:steward}}. The answer is that there is none. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Globally blocked sockmaster

en:User:Modern Fire is globally blocked. This editor has a large sockfarm. Can that courtesy be extended to the many sockpuppets please? This one will need to be watched as more sock are being discovered. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This account is not globally blocked. Ruslik (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Please remove

I would appreciate if any kind steward helps to remove my email address from this protected page. Thank you! Jim Carter (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Stryn (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I report an abuse by a bureaucrat to Stewards?

Is this the right place to do it?

If so, Please, listen carefully. The issue is very complex. I have a problem on Turkish wikipedia, all problems are reported to the bureaucrat of Turkish wikipedia but he is ignoring everything and he is not only ignoring but siding with the others and they are preventing me from deleting a baseless content. Let me give more details:

1) The first problem I have to report is I have been insulted verbally by a patrol of Turkish wikipedia 3 times in a month. I have reported him/her right after he/she called me a "troll user." The bureaucrat did not do anything for nearly a month. After about a month passed I started to demand bureaucrat do his job and sanction the defamator. Instead, I ended up being banned for a week and the defamator is not sanctioned in anyway. I may be banned for something I have done, that is up to debate but the patrol who insulted me 3 times in a month is not sanctioned in anyway, he is not banned, he is not expelled, he is not penalized, he is not interrogated. Nothing, Nothing. He has insulted me and he is just surfing wikipedia.

"UPDATE: After the bureaucrat did not do anything for nearly a month, I contacted other admins and community page as well thinking someone else would do something. I reported this defamation and other problems to 3 administrators and to the community portal page. Then I got banned instead. END UPDATE.

2) I detected several flaws in a certian section of a certian article. Flaws were (not limitied to): a) baseless content being displayed on a wiki article. Not even original research, the content was not a deduced statement from the source, it was just an invention. I reported it and asked them to delete it, the patrol kept on preventing me and requested the bureaucrat to protect the page. So he did. b) The patrol is citing a source for one part of a content, I am adding more detail to the section to remove the misleading information, I am using the same source the patrol is using but the patrol is preventing me stating "It would change the article's context in an opposite direction." The part I added exposes the distortion, the patrol clearly and explicitly stated he would not allow a change that would expose the charlatancy of the journalist Mehmet Ali Birand. I asked the bureaucrat whether it is a confession of being biased, bureaucrat is not responding and is not doing anything. He just banned me. c) The same problem occured on English wikipedia as well but the patrol did not have powers to prevent me on English wiki, he edit-warred me and I reported him to wikipedia admin noticeboard, then he quitted edit-warring here. They are not giving any explanation on Turkish wikipedia which is the place they have power to stop me but they can not do it on English wikipedia.

Who can solve these problems? Can bureaucrats do whatever they wish?--Ruhubelent (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Contributor Account Block

Hello Honorable Stewards,

I am SUMON RAHMAN I have been Contributing Wikipedia for the last few years. Couple of months ago account has been BLOCKED by I am regretting, I BEG PARDON. I will never do this things what breaks Wikipedia rules. Please unblock my account.

Best regards Sumon Rahman

Hi. We can't overrule decision made by local admins. You have to request an unblock of your account locally on You can request an unblock on your talk page. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Import a page from Oldwikisource to Dutch Wikisource

The page Oud en trouw Roermond was copied from Oldwikisource instead of imported, so no edit history is kept. Could the two versions be merged through import? (transwiki-import from Old to nl is not enabled) Links to discussions: [1] [2] [3]. Thank you! :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ooswesthoesbes: such requests should be applied in SRM --Alaa :)..! 10:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I couldn't find that page :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Page update

Hello everyone, about a year ago I started a rewrite of the steward page to better describe who we are and what we do. I think the role and responsibility of stewards is very ambiguous to many, and hopefully this will clear things up in advance of the 2019 elections. Anyone is free to review Stewards/2018 rewrite and comment or make changes! Thanks, – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of changes


  1. "we do not change rights on wikis with local crats" - Even if all crats are inactive? also Oversight policy says "Stewards may perform local oversighting in emergencies, during crosswiki issues, or if there are no local oversighters available".
  2. "it's quite logical that the start date is the first election date" - See Talk:Stewards/Archive_4#Active_from: not the date that the user is first elected as steward (if that, MarcoAurelio should have a date of 2010-03-08 instead of 2015-02-28, but the date that the user is last elected as steward. So this term should be clearified.

--GZWDer (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@GZWDer: As we've done the same with Mardetanha, I've now changed the start date of MarcoAurelio. I'll look at the other things the coming days. Trijnsteltalk 22:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Still, "active from" is an ambigous term.--GZWDer (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with GZWDer. Like if someone was a steward in 2012 and again in 2018, I would not say that they were active from 2012. Stryn (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
First elected date? --Cohaf (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


The fact people can say that 'x' is insufficient but won't say what an adequate 'y' is, is a neurotic approach to this whole issue. So, can we not establish an average adequate amount? Every single other wiki and role has it, it's not some nebulous, subjective, ever-changing amount that no one knows about except the individual, and even the individual will never say what it is. Please, let's have a discussion and establish this here. -- Mentifisto 15:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

In policy, there is already an absolute minimum activity level written. This is for automatic removal, and not the community definition of sufficient activity. No policy change can be enacted to prohibit people from finding your level of involvement and activity to be insufficient. Vermont (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Partial blocks on Meta-Wiki

Hello Meta contributors,

Anti-Harassment Tool team's is doing ongoing work to improve Special:Block. Last month partial block was introduced on Italian Wikipedia and is now being used on on a regular basis to address vandalism and other kinds of abusive edits. During this first month, the majority of partial blocks set on Italian Wikipedia were to ip contributors and newly created named accounts that are doing vandalism and other common types of abuse. There were also a few partial blocks of ip range blocks making similar abusive edits. Partial blocks makes it possible for the block to be targeted to specific pages and prevent collateral damage that can happen with range blocks.

Since Italian Wikipedia found partial blocks useful and there are no serious known issues or bugs, our team is planning to slowly introduce partial blocks into more Foundation wikis. Our team decided to prioritize deploying to Meta before other wikis because there is the added benefit of giving Meta admins the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the best uses for partial blocks before it comes to their local wiki. Of course, the primary reason for deploying on Meta is so that Meta admins can get the full benefit of all Special:Block's features.

It is scheduled to SWAT deploy to Meta on Thursday, February 21 at 00:00–01:00 UTC (Wednesday 16:00–17:00 PST.) The interface will change and the new partial block function will be added. I anticipate that the most common uses will be similar to requests for blocks made on Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. Since currently Meta does not have a detailed policy about blocks, more documentation and discussion about partial blocks uses is probably not needed before the feature is introduced.

For anyone interested in a more detailed policy or guideline, Italian Wikipedia wrote a page that explains the use of partial blocks. Something similar could be added to Meta.

Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts about introducing partial blocks on Meta. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User reporting system


You are receiving this message because you are a member of committee that manages cases of harassment or other types of abuse; and may have an interested in giving feedback about a new initiative to develop a user reporting system.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken.

The success of this project depends on collecting ideas and feedback from people in a variety of different roles in the Wikimedia movement. To this end, there will be a multi-phased consultation where you can participate in ways that you find most comfortable.

Please visit the User reporting system consultation page to learn more about the process, to ask questions, or to offer feedback. You also can sign up to be be a liaison for you group, to translate pages or messages, or to host a discussion group (on or off wiki.)

Please share this message with other people who you think would be interested in this project.

Cheers, SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-discrimination policy

I meant to ask this of the candidates during the recent election, but maybe this timing will be better.

During a recent discussion Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel, the non-discrimination policy became an issue in a discussion that was closed by the stewards. There was a huge amount of interest in this discussion, with page views on the first day over 1,800 viewers. To my knowledge this discussion was not announced on any talk pages. By comparison, the most recent edition of the Signpost only received slightly over 600 page views on the day it was published, in spite of being automatically delivered to numerous talk pages.

A resolution creating a non-discrimination policy was approved by the board in 2006. The text of the statement was

Resolved that,
The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer.

This policy became the Non_discrimination_policy, however in 2017, the wording was altered to

"The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of ..."

According to Stewards' policies, the stewards "are required to follow established community policies", however, to my knowledge there has never been a community endorsement of this policy.

While I think it would be difficult for the community to endorse the idea of non-discrimination as applied to readers of Wikipedia, it would be much easier to endorse a non-discrimination policy for volunteers.

Would the stewards be willing to endorse such a statement? How is such a statement started and who is the appropriate person to start it? Maybe someone who has this page on their watchlist will know how to go forward with this.

Thank you. —Neotarf (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the result of the RfC shows that the community does not tolerate discrimination (at least along the lines of sexual orientation), I would usually say that codification of a specific policy is not required. However, when it comes to human rights I think that over-codifying is not a bad thing, and would support a global community policy. Starting an RFC is the way to create global policies, though it might be worth thinking a bit more about what it should say before taking it to a vote. Should it be a simple statement, or should there also be some sort of codified method of sanctions (either descriptive or prescriptive)? I would personally like to see a statement prohibiting discrimination, and a brief statement of what sanctions could be placed based on existing processes (i.e. a Meta RFC, steward-initiated desysopping, etc) – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Ajraddatz for your response and for your interest. I have been trying to think of a simple response to this, and I have concluded that that is the answer: there is no simple response.
Since the usual summary was missing from the RfC closing, I don't know what can be concluded about the closure, although there was obviously a high amount of interest in the discussion.
If you look at the announcement about the user reporting system consultation 2019 just below this section, you can see a very complex discussion about implementation shaping up. You may also be interested in this declined arbitration request discussion that was primarily about discriminatory language but ended up being declined because of scope/venue. This is what happens if you try to introduce too many issues at a time, you risk losing focus, people will say 'I agree with A, but not B,C, and D', or 'I don't have time to research all of that, so I will vote oppose to all.' I also remember seeing that the enforcement of TOS is specifically called out in some policy somewhere, so you don't want to risk introducing something that may be rejected because some part of it conflicts with some other policy somewhere. Also, many do not feel comfortable talking about this publicly, as they believe they will themselves be targeted for harassment - I suspect the ongoing Strategy Process may end up addressing, or dovetailing with some of these issues.
Ideally the current policy statement should just be amended to add the word "volunteers". We don't know why volunteers were not included in the policy statement as amended by Legal, although the original board statement was clearly meant to include volunteers. I am assuming that Legal did not think they could speak on behalf of the volunteers, but we don't know unless we ask. And it would be very hard to ask, without some clear consensus from the community to bring forward.
IMO it is very unfair to ask an underrepresented group to solve its own discrimination problems. They should not have had to approach that wiki by themselves, it should have been approached by a global representative that could help bring that wiki into compliance with international community standards diplomatically. A simple resolution like this - to add the word "volunteers" to the policy - would send a very strong statement that discrimination is the problem of the community as a whole. So I would say to present the simplest statement possible, that everyone can easily agree on. Maybe that's not really the territory of stewards, I don't know, but you are all probably more familiar with Meta than I am. The next question I think is who might be willing to sponsor the RFC. —Neotarf (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Stewards/Archive 5" page.