Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2015-01

Global bot policy update

Hi. I've closed Requests for comment/Inactive Global bot accounts. Will you please review it and if everything is OK, modify the bot policy? Thanks. -- M\A 11:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I modified the policy. Ruslik (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

unblock IP 193.54.167.180 on French Wikipedia

Hi,

This IP is blocked on French Wikipedia since another registered account used it for spamming (these are the reasons given), and I cannot contribute with my account because of that (I cannot edit even my talkpage). Could someone please unblock the IP (only the IP, not the spamming account obviously) ? This IP is used by a lot of people (Paris 8 University) and it is quite damaging. Thank you. Bu180 (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(Not a steward)Please contact local admin, as Stewards can do nothing about local issue with active admins. — Revi 07:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot do anything since my talkpage is also locked. This is why I am asking here. The concern is only about the IP, not the spamming account having used it. Bu180 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless steward has local sysop on frwiki, stewards cannot do anything about that issue, as local sysops can act according to local policy. (Local sysops are not inactive, yeah?) Therefore no action will be taken by steward. — Revi 08:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not what I was asking for. Did you read what I wrote? I cannot ask local sysops for unblocking since I cannot edit my talkpage nor send e-mails. Bu180 (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but stewards have nothing to do on this issue, as stewards did nothing, and stewards are not allowed to do something where there is active local sysop. — Revi 09:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I just left a note at French wiki admin notice board--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 09:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Bu180 (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bu180: Hi, I cannot find the block of this IP in w:fr:Special:BlockList. Do you have the block ID (i.e. #12345) returned by Mediawiki when you try to edit ? (it will help us to find the block faster). Linedwell@frwiki (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The block ID is 3072419. This is probably an autoblock but I've seen the block will end soon. Bu180 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The block seems to have expired (I can't find it). You should be now able to edit on frwiki. Linedwell@frwiki (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

hu.wikiquote

Hello! Thanks for the notify from user:Rschen7754! The local community of hu.wikiquote would like to handle the admin bit questions locally[1]. The specific admin in question is rechable and agreed to continue his support in need. The project is a nice happy one, rarely needs admin actions, that's why the low activity. Thank you! --grin ✎ 09:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (admin, bureaucrat, founder)

@Grin: If the huWQ community wishes to solely manage their review of advanced administrative rights then you will need to go through the process of developing a local policy based on the consensus of the community. If you refer to the policy it explains the requirements, and where that information of consensus needs to be added. To note that the policy and this process currently allow you to manage your rights. What has been undertaken is a prompt and alert function that is undertaken to point out to the person and the community that a person has been inactive for over two years, and then puts the emphasis back to the community to discuss. It is only when nothing happens from the community and the user in question do we act in accordance with the policy directed actions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Steward requests/Bot status

Please watch Steward requests/Bot status. Mjbmr (discussion • contribs) 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

li.wikipedia (again!)

Ladies and gentlemen, at the local village pump we received a notice that due to inactivity, li:Gebroeker:Pahles will lose his admin rights if we don't create our own policy on this issue.

I don't get it. It was only last August that the very same issue was raised about the very same user. We informed you then that we preferred not to remove anyone's admin rights as long as they aren't abused. There was consensus on the subject and we told you so. Immediately after the incident, we officially formulated and approved this policy. So I urge you not to interfere again in our admin policy, unless someone's rights need to be removed according to our rules. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 23:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I will look into this, it's obvious it's a mistake. Apologies. Savh^ñ 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Rschen7754. Savh^ñ 23:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the question is whether a policy that says "Nothing is done" is a "formal advanced rights review process" (AAR) that needs to exist locally in order for stewards not to visit a wiki in the AAR process. In my opinion it is not; the community can nevertheless keep all the inactive admins by deciding all the time after the notifications that these sysops should be kept. --MF-W 23:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

We do review admins. That is: we check our wiki, and if they go berserk, we will notice and decide against them. Does your remark mean, MF-Warburg, that for having no (in)activity criteria for admins we need to be "punished" by constant reminders that some of our admins haven't done anything? I don't think so. Wiki A may have one policy, wiki B another, what's the matter? We informed you what our policy is, it would be a waste if time to all of us if you just keep saying our admins are inactive. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think it is a policy... if I had known that the community had passed such a policy within the last few months, I would not have left the notices. --Rschen7754 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you all. Case closed, I suppose. In exchange, I promise we will craft these semi-official policies into neat project pages to ensure they are not so easily overlooked. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 09:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Steinbach: The better way to do this would be for you to add your wiki to the schedule for AAR with a permalink to your community's discussion, and then you are done. With >> 700 wikis our memories are not reliable for which are excluded. If you are not listed on the exemption list then you won't get exempted. I have just relocated the list from its compilation space with the RFC and it is now adjunct to the policy at Admin activity review/processes to review holders of advanced administrative rights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is surely a policy, but hardly a process. --MF-W 23:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, but then again it is their right to decide that. --Rschen7754 02:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not if AAR is actually a policy that means what it says. --MF-W 15:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

kk.wikipedia loading resources from AddThis

See w:kk:Special:Diff/2213305. I've already warned all the sysops there, but they have a lot of JavaScripts in that wiki and someone should help them with a thorough review.

Related pages: w:kk:Project:Гаджеттер/AddThis, w:kk:Уикипедия:Гаджеттер/Тізім, w:kk:Үлгі:AdvancedSiteNotices/8-ONLY LOGGED IN USER, w:kk:Уикипедия:Қысқа сілтеме. --Nemo 11:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Good, Arystanbek removed AddThis by default. --Nemo 23:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Stewards' delegate in AAR process

Hi. Two weeks ago I prepared a list with inactive administrators which was used to create Admin activity review/2014/Data page. The next task carried out during AAR is sending notice to communities and inactive users and I would also like to help in this process, as I wrote here. Therefore, in accordance with the global policy, I would like to be approved as a stewards' delegate in this and subsequent years. I know how it should be done so it should not be a problem. Openbk (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I do not know whether you are for or against, or maybe nothing against…? And I would like to know if I can begin to do it or should I leave it unchanged. Openbk (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  I am not aware of any official vote or other recognition for delegates, though help with this tedious process is probably appreciated. Drop a note or a ping to Rschen7754 (sorry!), he's been doing this iirc. Savh^ñ 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  This is not a vote or something similar but I would like to know opinions of others (due to the policy). Openbk (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  From what I know, anyone can leave notices for users in line with the AAR policy. Obviously stewards need to be the ones to remove the rights. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  Only "stewards or their delegates" (number four) and that's why I ask. Openbk (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  This is true; @Savh, Ajraddatz: In the past there has been a discussion about this on stewards-l. --MF-W 23:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm okay with it, that's why I suggested that he post here... From my own opinion, stewards should approve whomever leaves the notices to make sure they know what they are doing. --Rschen7754 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• So… if no one is opposed, can I start? Openbk (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Openbk: I would go ahead, but start off slowly just in case there are problems. --Rschen7754 04:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)