Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2022-10
| Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2022, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Notifications to local communities are needed. Thank you. Александр Мотин (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed the page creation Steward requests/Unjustified admin. What to do? Move it somewhere else? Seems like a local issue anyway. --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have moved to a subpage of theirs in the user ns and asked that they reread the pages about stewards. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I have opened the above RFC. Rschen7754 03:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Emergency desysop for PlanespotterA320
Hello stewards,
I'm here asking for an emergency desysop for PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs) on uz.wikipedia because this user has been found using a sockpuppet called RespectCE (talk · contribs) to cross-wiki abuse, after checking by CUs from English Wikipedia. The discussion could be found here en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#PlanespotterA320_/_User:RespectCE Any other advanced permission or right should be removed as soon as possible. Lemonaka (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- CC@WikiBayer and Tamzin: Who found the sockpuppetry. Lemonaka (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- About 40 minutes ago, this was brought up on IRC. Three stewards including myself don't see this as an emergency desysop. This can proceed through normal channels and I think the community involved should be very much informed. -- Amanda (she/her) 16:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask for help because I cannot understand Uzbek at all, and after a rough check, there is no desysop policy on uzwiki except for inactive. Still, thanks a lot. Lemonaka (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Lemonaka A bad machine translation of uz:Vikipediya:Administratorlar#Administratorlikdan chiqish says that desyopping is possible by resignation, by inactivity, or for a pattern of abuse (administratorning Vikipediya va Vikimedia tamoyillarini bir necha bor buzgan hollarda). I would suggest posting on uz:Vikipediya:Administratorlar forumi (their local administrators' noticeboard). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Deeply gratitude! But I'm a bit fatigue and scared since several hours ago somebody tried to hack into my account by guessing my password. Stressed out, ill %sick, will leave the case for others editors. Lemonaka (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Lemonaka: Some LTAs like doing that to mess with people. If you have a password someone could plausibly guess, change it! If you don't, you have nothing to be worried about. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Local community noticed, thank you Lemonaka (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Good day! What's all the fuss about? PlanespotterA320 hasn't engaged in any disruptive editing on uzwiki as far as I know. Moreover, even though I'm a bureaucrat over there, I can't simply desysop admins. I guess since we're a small community our bureaucrats don't have this power. Nataev talk 09:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Lemonaka's notification incorrectly describes the local procedure for desysop as a procedure on metawiki. The desysop should be a community decision, not here, but on the local uzwiki. For example, if there is a procedure on uzwiki, desysop must be done according to the procedure. Otherwise, the desysop must be decided through a community vote or discussion, and then the consensus of the community must be notified to the stewards. Read first how your local procedure stipulates it, and then consider whether PlanespotterA320's dishonesty will adversely affect uzwiki. After that, if desysop makes sense, start the procedure for this locally. --Sotiale (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's sad that I made a wrong notification, considering now there's only one vote for oppose from bureau there, and one oppose here, this might be invalid. Lemonaka (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Lemonaka's notification incorrectly describes the local procedure for desysop as a procedure on metawiki. The desysop should be a community decision, not here, but on the local uzwiki. For example, if there is a procedure on uzwiki, desysop must be done according to the procedure. Otherwise, the desysop must be decided through a community vote or discussion, and then the consensus of the community must be notified to the stewards. Read first how your local procedure stipulates it, and then consider whether PlanespotterA320's dishonesty will adversely affect uzwiki. After that, if desysop makes sense, start the procedure for this locally. --Sotiale (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Good day! What's all the fuss about? PlanespotterA320 hasn't engaged in any disruptive editing on uzwiki as far as I know. Moreover, even though I'm a bureaucrat over there, I can't simply desysop admins. I guess since we're a small community our bureaucrats don't have this power. Nataev talk 09:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Deeply gratitude! But I'm a bit fatigue and scared since several hours ago somebody tried to hack into my account by guessing my password. Stressed out, ill %sick, will leave the case for others editors. Lemonaka (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Lemonaka A bad machine translation of uz:Vikipediya:Administratorlar#Administratorlikdan chiqish says that desyopping is possible by resignation, by inactivity, or for a pattern of abuse (administratorning Vikipediya va Vikimedia tamoyillarini bir necha bor buzgan hollarda). I would suggest posting on uz:Vikipediya:Administratorlar forumi (their local administrators' noticeboard). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask for help because I cannot understand Uzbek at all, and after a rough check, there is no desysop policy on uzwiki except for inactive. Still, thanks a lot. Lemonaka (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
3 stewards including myself thought this emergency desysop was not necessary, so this emergency desysop was not implemented. This should be decided by the community members of uzwiki taking into account the inadequacy and dishonesty of their sysops. Therefore, I would like to mark this thread as not done and close it. --Sotiale (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Sotiale: Per en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#PlanespotterA320_/_User:RespectCE this user is threatening with using more socks. They has been active recently and has received more blocks and bans, any further steps should be taken to intervene now? Lemonaka (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- There seems to be a misunderstanding about emergency desysop. The stewards are not super users who override all local communities. A desysop is basically a serious decision of the local community, and we only make the hope of the community come true according to their consensus. However, the reason an 'emergency desysop' is possible is that the local community is unable to respond to the apparent and ongoing serious abuse of sysops, leaving the stewards open to action in these cases. If this account on uzwiki is blocking many other users for no reason, or if there is a wheel war with admins, emergency desysop is possible. But if there are no such obvious dangers and abuses happening right now, it's up to the local community to decide on the sysop bit. It is very dishonest that they sock other wikis, but this is not sufficient reason to immediately remove their sysop bit without community decision. --Sotiale (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Gotta, thanks for explanations. Lemonaka (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also note, as uzwiki has many sysops (w:uz:Maxsus:ListUsers/sysop) any of them can impose a local block, sysops are not immune to being blocked. — xaosflux Talk 10:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, if this was the only admin on a wiki there would be more of a case for an emergency desysop - but there are plenty of active ones, even to the point where they could be removed from the global sysop wikiset automatically. --Rschen7754 00:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also note, as uzwiki has many sysops (w:uz:Maxsus:ListUsers/sysop) any of them can impose a local block, sysops are not immune to being blocked. — xaosflux Talk 10:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Gotta, thanks for explanations. Lemonaka (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- There seems to be a misunderstanding about emergency desysop. The stewards are not super users who override all local communities. A desysop is basically a serious decision of the local community, and we only make the hope of the community come true according to their consensus. However, the reason an 'emergency desysop' is possible is that the local community is unable to respond to the apparent and ongoing serious abuse of sysops, leaving the stewards open to action in these cases. If this account on uzwiki is blocking many other users for no reason, or if there is a wheel war with admins, emergency desysop is possible. But if there are no such obvious dangers and abuses happening right now, it's up to the local community to decide on the sysop bit. It is very dishonest that they sock other wikis, but this is not sufficient reason to immediately remove their sysop bit without community decision. --Sotiale (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: Lemonaka (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Looking for Scrutineers
Its that time of the year again, and the English Wikipedia is looking for three stewards to serve as scrutineers in the 2022 Arbitration Committee election. Information on what is expected of scrutineers is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers. Please also specify whether you would like to be a primary scrutineer or reserve. Thanks in advance to any takers, -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 20:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Asartea, I volunteered for two consecutive years by now, but I'm happy to be a scrutineer for en:WP:ACE2022 as well. Happy to make space for other volunteers, if there are any
. Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC) - I consider en.wp to be my main, or secondary, project and thus have a conflict of interest that disqualifies me. Sorry. MarcGarver (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Asartea. I would be happy to volunteer as a primary scrutineer for these elections :). Best wishes, Sgd. —Hasley 21:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with either primary or reserve. I did this last year, so it doesn't matter if you give preference to other stewards. --Sotiale (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to put bump this one more time; while we already have the required scrutineers (and my thanks to them for yet again volunteering for this often thankless task) if any stewards would like to sign up as reserves it would be greatly appreciated. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Clear very old IPv4 blocks?
Just an idea... Special:GlobalBlockList has more than 22,000 IPv4 entries (from single adresses up to /16-networks), which are blocked > 12m. (Made a sortable list here.) Together they form 4 % of the usable public IPv4 space. IMO we should try to reduce this percentage, to mitigate false-positive exclusions of benevolent people. My proposal would be to remove all the blocks older than 5 years. We did this once on dewiki. - If not appropiate here, please move this section to the right place. Greetings, --MBq (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- move from SRM -𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 21:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- The stewards had this debate years ago and it was the decision then that we should not be having permanent IP blocks due to spam, and that really we should be limiting to five years at the most. And five years was an extraordinary block due to clear inherent issues. IP blocks are repurposed, sold on, etc.. Has that policy changed? The logs showing the oldest shows we have had only two stewards doing that action, and I would think that many (all?) of those blocks older than five years can be removed. Metawiki did that years ago, though it does need occasional maintenance to ensure that there have been no accidentals. I think that the guidance for stewards is a five year max for a unilateral block, and if they wish t block for longer it should be done in consultation with other stewards and notes made on the reason (they have those resources). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- If 5 years have passed, it is possible to review this, especially in the case of indef. Dealing with this will first need to be announced so that the steward who blocked it can decide first. I'll send an email to the mailing list and ask for the opinion. --Sotiale (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Administration and interface administration
प्रशासन और इंटरफ़ेस प्रशासन here see, Please enable these.These are now required at Hindi Wikiquote, please enable them.These gadgets are necessary. MediaWiki:Gadget-UserMessages.js MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js MediaWiki:Common.js/WatchlistNotice.js MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon MediaWiki:Common.css MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js MediaWiki:Common.css D.Peter (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete please
06:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- @D.Peter: Please use SRM and GSR (or wikiquote:hi:Template:Delete) respectively, and include more information about what you want copied where. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- @AntiCompositeNumber I want to copy those Hindi wiki quotes, but I can't because I'm not admin and interface admin in that wiki. D.Peter (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)