Stewards' noticeboard
- This is not the place for stewards requests. To make a new request, see steward requests and requests and proposals.
- For illustration of steward policies and use, see the steward handbook.
- See also: Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard.
- This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
Shāntián Tàiláng glock
editWith all due respect, I think stewards may not be looking deeply enough into this matter. This user absolutely does meet the description of "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam"
This all started over four years ago at en.wikt. What I don't think the Stewards are getting is that all the other blocks flow from that same problem, he just keeps moving the same complaints from one wiki to another and dragging more users into it. The original block is for "Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion: using IPs to evade block; continuing to ping other users to ask them make edits for them after request to stop pinging other editors" This is exactly what they did on en.wp, Commons, el.wikt, and here, stretching from 2022 until just a few days ago here on Meta. The socking may have stopped, but the rest has just dragged on and on with no sign that they have the slightest understanding of why it is unacceptable. In fact, they suggested at User talk:Bastique#Something I really meant to say on COM:AN/U that the real problem is that they should be exempt from the normal expectations because of their personal issues. Note also that they pinged me in that discussion, when part of what has gotten them blocked across multiple projects over four years is nuisance pinging.
@Yann:, the admin who blocked them for three months on Commons, upon seeing that they instantly imported the dispute here, supported global action.
I am the last of several blocking admins on en.wp and I also am asking for it as they have pestered me personally, deliberately, across three WMF sites. I thought I was done when re-blocking them without talk page access last month but since then they have carried the dispute to Commons and then here, exhibiting the exact same behavior that led to the initial block on en.,wikt. That they aren't blocked on every single project where they have ever made a single edit does not excuse this.
One of their sock accounts is already globally locked.
This person is incapable of learning from their errors. This has been going on for years and admins from multiple projects are asking for help from stewards, and it is not the first time it has been asked for. Please rid of us this user without forcing an RFC for a ban. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would be supportive of a global block, with the possibility that the block be locally exempted on enws. I agree with Alaa that this would typically be a candidate for a global ban, but I think the introduction of account global blocks gives us a middle ground, time saving option in cases like this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
New zhwiki SPI Clerk Nominee: 0xDeadbeef
editHello,
As I have previously noted in Special:diff/28148474, the community has endorsed a new clerk candidate, @0xDeadbeef:, to join the zhwiki SPI team.
It is a local policy for any clerk nominations to be made public here at the Steward's noticeboard for seven days before the nominee assumes position, in the event of which stewards would have major concerns about the candidate that would fail such nomination.
A bit more about the clerk nominee: 0xDeadbeef is currently volunteering as an administrator and SPI clerk on enwiki. I am personally looking forward to having 0xDeadbeef working with the zhwiki clerk team as well amid clerk shortages as long as there is support from the stewards. Please feel free to leave a note below: whether it's concerns, encouragements, or comments are all appreciated. cc @Sotiale, AmandaNP, and EPIC:. （☎） 17:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- No issues on my part, though if the others have any concerns I'll take them into account. EPIC (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- No issues, he is also on the U4C. Good candidate. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a problem. To avoid confusion for other stewards, can you link to a page with a list of clerks? Thanks. --Sotiale (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- The list of zhwiki clerks is at zh:WP:傀儡調查/調查助理#調查助理列表. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
The nomination has been confirmed. I would personally like to appreciate all the inputs that were provided. cc @0xDeadbeef:-- （☎） 22:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Hunsvotti@fiwiktionary bureaucratship
editHey, in Finnish Wiktionary, we have discussed about a new bureaucrat, here. Our former bureaucrat, TJ, lost his/her bureaucratship because of passivity. We have discussed about a new bureaucrat, and Hunsvotti has said that he/she would be interested to be a new bureaucrat of the Finnish Wiktionary. Everyone has supposed Hunsvotti's bureaucratship, so I would ask the stewards to give bureaucrat's rights to Hunsvotti.--Sentree (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Sentree This should be filed at SRP. Leaderboard (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Disregarding that the request should be filed at SRP, I don't think fiwiktionary can consider themselves qualified for local bureaucrats at this time. There are general requirements for granting bureaucrat rights, which are listed at Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements#Bureaucrat. Generally, that would mainly include having a large enough community, and at least five supports, which doesn't seem to be the case for fiwiktionary. Also, the discussion was opened in October last year (four months ago) and the discussion would generally have reached a point where the current consensus is too old. All that being said, please feel free to otherwise redirect adminship/bot flag requests to the stewards and we would be happy to assist in that end. EPIC (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- The bureaucracy of Hunsvotti got at least five supports, including me. Also, the consensus "didn't get old", nobody changed their views on the matter. I don't understand why we can't have an own bureaucrat anymore after having one for years, totally unnecessary bureaucracy on Meta's behalf here. In general I don't understand why small Wikis can't make decisions about their own things and have to come to Meta for requests. Also, the page you linked says "These guidelines do not alter or override any local policies or guidelines approved by active wikis." But it seems like you indeed are overriding Fiwiktionary's local decision-making with these guidelines. --Minilammas (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I just want to note that I mistyped; I meant fifteen votes, rather than five. And indeed MVR does not override local policies. On that note, stewards are generally restrictive with granting bureaucrat rights on small wikis for a number of reasons, which is why we mainly abide by the requirements listed at MVR as they have been approved by the community. Regarding the validity of the consensus, there is no solid requirements for any maximum time any discussion should be open, that's evaluated on a case-to-case basis, and indeed the consensus might still reflect the community's current opinions e.g. in the case of fiwiktionary. But as a general practice, we try to make sure that the consensus isn't too old, because the stewards don't know most smaller communities and are unable to know whether an older consensus reflects the current opinions of the community. In that case, if the community is later unhappy with the local administrator/bureaucrat, it is harder both for us and for them to intervene afterwards.
- With that being said, it's up to another steward to evaluate this and decide what to do in this specific case. EPIC (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I want to remind that Hunsvotti is a highly trusted user on fiwiktionary, and it is extremely improbable that we would be unhappy with him/her as a bureaucrat. And even if that was the case somehow, it would in no way be the steward's fault, it would be the local community's fault. I am afraid that no more stewards will comment on this, and eventually this request will be archived with no clear answer. --Minilammas (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed the community is the main party responsible for handling any potential requests for permissions. But we are also the ones responsible for implementing community consensus and we therefore have to be careful when evaluating it. In the past, the stewards gave out permanent administrator/bureaucrat rights very freely, even on small wikis, but as a result of several RfCs and disputes throughout the years related to such right holders, this is no longer the case. This was implemented before my time so another steward might be able to explain, but noting here as well for transparency that discussions here are only archived 30 days after the most recent comment. However, if the community wants to be sure that this is evaluated, they could otherwise place an SRP request. EPIC (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Well, thanks anyway for giving me some insight as to why this is the way it is. --Minilammas (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with EPIC. There are several issues with this request:
- This is the wrong place to request permissions, pleases use SRP#Bureaucrat access to continue this discussion.
- MVR#Bureaucrat expects at least 15 votes and suggests electing at least two bureaucrats if a community is determined to be large enough. Given your low frequency of requests for adminship I don't really think local crats are needed. Of course local policies like fi:wikt:Wikisanakirja:Byrokraatit can override MVR, but I wouldn't feel comfortable granting bureaucrat permissions to a small project for the following reasons:
- The linked discussion started four month ago, that's what we usually consider too old to act on.
- And it seems like local requests for permissions are usually discussed following the process described at fi:wikt:Wikisanakirja:Ylläpitäjät#Uudet ehdokkaat? I don't understand why fi:wikt:Wikisanakirja:Ylläpitäjien ilmoitustaulu was used instead, doesn't that potentially limit participation of the broader community?
- Johannnes89 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- fi:wikt:Wikisanakirja:Ylläpitäjät#Uudet ehdokkaat describes the the process of electing new administrators. The discussion about a new bureaucrat started at fi:wikt:Wikisanakirja:Ylläpitäjien ilmoitustaulu because Sentree figured it's best to have a discussion about the topic first, and during the discussion we came into agreement that a separate vote for a bureaucrat is not necessary, as everyone involved in the discussion supported the bureaucratship and no opposition emerged. I'm sure that everyone who has wanted to say something regarding the topic has had their chance to express their opinion during these months. --Minilammas (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Where are all those problems triggering this whole event? Where are those things making you "uncomfortable", apart from disturbing an otherwise working local wiki system? From time to time I observe someone walking around and starting "implementing" "central" "decisions" on small wikis, referring to some obscure, remote and not locally applying problems. Reminds me to the deletionists who walk around (on commons for example) and try to find "problematic" material, which isn't obviously problematic but could be interpreted as such, and put them on speedy or RfD.
- Local admin people on small wikis are useful because they are usually easily contacted by the community, they understand local problems, they speak the language, prioritize their own language projects higher, and in most cases they are respected members of the local community. Instead you'd remove them and offered stewards, who have none of these. They can easily bounce off average people looking for help (they don't follow local project pages anyway), and they are busy because they steward hundreds of projects.
- Of course it's very hard to prevent this from happening: when a steward (or a group of them) decides that "it's time to make order" and point at the voted guideline then small wikis can't help that, partially since they have, well, small voting power. "We have a small community and we voted for them" - "The guideline say you're too small, we cannot count that"; "the guideline say you cannot have too few admins, we cannot agree that"; etc. "But it works well!" - "Well yes but it's not matching the guideline, so we change it". It's not a really motivational process.
- (Disclaimer: Spoken from a wikisource, which is generally very low traffic by its nature, with an extremely small community; which likely will be axed, as things look.) -- grin ✎ 13:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this comment. Well said. --Minilammas (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- We are not saying anything like this to annoy small projects, it's to protect them. There have been too many instances in the past where local permissions have been issued and then people got inactive causing problems for their project. Example: Stewards are not allowed to grant admin permissions if there are local bureaucrats. If a project elects just a single bureaucrat and they get inactive, we either need to ignore our policy or the project cannot grant permissions to newly elected admins. That's why the number of wikis with bureaucrats is very small (see Bureaucrat). Noting that former fiwikit bureaucrat TJ said the need for a bureaucrat is very near zero in your wiki [1].
- In any way: If the regular process is voting, I don't think we could grant permissions based on a discussion which decided to just skip voting. I'm sure the discussion happened in good faith, but stewards need to make sure procedures are being followed to avoid any potential mistakes. Johannnes89 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this comment. Well said. --Minilammas (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with EPIC. There are several issues with this request:
- Well, thanks anyway for giving me some insight as to why this is the way it is. --Minilammas (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed the community is the main party responsible for handling any potential requests for permissions. But we are also the ones responsible for implementing community consensus and we therefore have to be careful when evaluating it. In the past, the stewards gave out permanent administrator/bureaucrat rights very freely, even on small wikis, but as a result of several RfCs and disputes throughout the years related to such right holders, this is no longer the case. This was implemented before my time so another steward might be able to explain, but noting here as well for transparency that discussions here are only archived 30 days after the most recent comment. However, if the community wants to be sure that this is evaluated, they could otherwise place an SRP request. EPIC (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I want to remind that Hunsvotti is a highly trusted user on fiwiktionary, and it is extremely improbable that we would be unhappy with him/her as a bureaucrat. And even if that was the case somehow, it would in no way be the steward's fault, it would be the local community's fault. I am afraid that no more stewards will comment on this, and eventually this request will be archived with no clear answer. --Minilammas (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- The bureaucracy of Hunsvotti got at least five supports, including me. Also, the consensus "didn't get old", nobody changed their views on the matter. I don't understand why we can't have an own bureaucrat anymore after having one for years, totally unnecessary bureaucracy on Meta's behalf here. In general I don't understand why small Wikis can't make decisions about their own things and have to come to Meta for requests. Also, the page you linked says "These guidelines do not alter or override any local policies or guidelines approved by active wikis." But it seems like you indeed are overriding Fiwiktionary's local decision-making with these guidelines. --Minilammas (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Disregarding that the request should be filed at SRP, I don't think fiwiktionary can consider themselves qualified for local bureaucrats at this time. There are general requirements for granting bureaucrat rights, which are listed at Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements#Bureaucrat. Generally, that would mainly include having a large enough community, and at least five supports, which doesn't seem to be the case for fiwiktionary. Also, the discussion was opened in October last year (four months ago) and the discussion would generally have reached a point where the current consensus is too old. All that being said, please feel free to otherwise redirect adminship/bot flag requests to the stewards and we would be happy to assist in that end. EPIC (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
You have been pinged me here (stewards' flag review)
editYou have left a message on my talk page, notifying me about the process of flag removal and asking me to give reponse here. (Since you already have pinged the community I have skipped repeating that.)
I hereby also state that I am alive, and I would like to keep the flags (technically this is true for all small wikis I'm flagged since 2003). I have no information of objection from the community, nor was there any voting for or against recently. (And you are obviously free to contact the community, also you can ping me in need.) This is my response, according to the message, to prevent flag removal. :-)
Thank you for your time and efforts. -- grin ✎ 13:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is in refence to the routine Admin activity review cycle. — xaosflux Talk 14:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Unless anyone from the local community objects, I think Grin could keep their rights and that we could exclude them from this year's AAR, as per the usual practice. EPIC (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
My administrative rights on pl.wikiquote.org
editI have received information that I meet the criteria for inactivity on pl.wikiqote.org. Therefore, I have posted a message on the page https://pl.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikicytaty:Bar#WA%C5%BBNE:_Kontrola_aktywno%C5%9Bci_administrator%C3%B3w_2 to inform the community and allow them to express their opinion. I will inform about the results. --MariuszR (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)--
For info
editHello,
An IP asks for help (account blocking in French - open proxy) here.
Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)