Stewards' noticeboard

←Stewards

Stewards' noticeboard

Archives→

Welcome to the stewards ' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.

• 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.

Stewards

• About stewards
• Elections
• History

Requests

• CheckUser information
• Global blocks & locks
• Global rights
• Local bot rights
• Local rights
• Account renaming
• Miscellaneous requests
• URL blacklisting
• Title/username blacklisting

For stewards

• Help
• Policies
• Bugs
• Mailing list
• #wikimedia-stewards^connect

Noticeboards

• Access policy noticeboard
• Stewards' noticeboard

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

UTRS2

I made a global block appeal through UTRS2 but unfortunately I didn't write down the appeal key and now I can't log in to see the progress of my request. I don't know if this is the right place but I don't know where else to turn. Please help me. Thank you. 188.4.245.41 01:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

For an IP block? Just open another request. Please note, appeals may take weeks to months to review. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeking victims volunteers to serve as scrutineers

We have ArbCom elections coming up soon and could use 3 brave volunteers to serve as scrutineers.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm willing to help out. (I have no COI with enwiki) EPIC (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm ready to help. Mykola 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

me too Johannnes89 (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you EPIC, Mykola7, and Johannnes89 —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Global sysop set audit

Inspired by the above two threads I wrote a PAWS script at https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/46222050/Global%20Sysops.ipynb to review what wikis should be added to or removed from the opt-out wiki set. It suggested:

1. Revoke access on afwiki (14 admins, 9 active)
2. Allow access on anwiki (only 9 admins)

   This wiki explicitly opted out per Global sysops/Local discussions

3. Revoke access on azwiki (15 admins, 13 active)
4. Revoke access on bewiki (10 admins, 7 active)
5. Revoke access on brwikimedia (13 admins, 4 active)
6. Allow access on bswiki (only 9 admins)
7. Revoke access on cowikimedia (13 admins, 3 active)

   (Only if you include both page creations and spam blacklist hits as logged actions, both of which are dubious, probably fine to leave as is)

8. Allow access on cswikisource (only 3 admins)

   This wiki explicitly opted out per Global sysops/Local discussions

9. Allow access on cswiktionary (only 4 admins)

   This wiki explicitly opted out per Global sysops/Local discussions

10. Revoke access on dewikiversity (10 admins, 4 active)
11. Revoke access on elwiktionary (10 admins, 5 active)
12. Revoke access on enwikinews (16 admins, 4 active)

    This wiki explicitly opted in per Global sysops/Local discussions. But personally it's nice to see that enwikinews has recovered above the point of being default in the GS scope after their prior crisis.

13. Remove access on enwikiversity (11 admins, 6 active)

    This wiki explicitly opted in per Global sysops/Local discussions.

14. Remove access on enwikibooks (37 admins, 16 active)

    This wiki explicitly opted in per Global sysops/Local discussions.

15. Remove access on eswikibooks (10 admins, 3 active)

    This wiki explicitly opted in per Global sysops/Local discussions.

16. Allow access on frwikiversity (only 9 admins)
17. Remove access on foundationwiki (25 admins, 5 active)

    This is a special case that doesn't follow standard global sysop rules

18. Remove access on hawiki (10 admins, 8 active)
19. Remove access on hywiki (10 admins, 6 active)
20. Remove access on incubatorwiki (13 admins, 5 active)

    This wiki explicitly opted in per Global sysops/Local discussions.

21. Remove access on itwikiquote (10 admins, 6 active)
22. Allow access on kawiki (only 6 admins)

    This wiki explicitly opted out per Global sysops/Local discussions.

23. Remove access on kkwiki (15 admins, 9 active)
24. Remove access on labswiki (Wikitech): 32 admins, 13 active
25. Remove access on lawiki: 21 admins, 8 active
26. Allow access on loginwiki (only 1 admin)

    This is a special-purpose wiki and isn't subject to GS rules.

27. Revoke access on mediawikiwiki (137 admins, 49 active)

    Please hold pending mw:Topic:Yf8m40ru9m6lvseu

28. Revoke access on nlwikimedia (14 admins, 3 active)

    This is listed at Global sysops/Local discussions as having opted out, but was added to the wiki set out of process in 2022 anyway.

29. Allow access on nlwiktionary (only 7 admins)
30. Revoke access on outreachwiki (20 admins, 4 active)

    This wiki explicitly opted in per Global sysops/Local discussions.

31. Revoke access on pawiki (10 admins, 5 active)
32. Revoke access on ruwiktionary (15 admins, 7 active)
33. Revoke access on sqwiki (11 admins, 4 active)

    There was a very old opt-in request at Steward requests/Global permissions/2010-11#Opt-in for Albanian Wikipedia, not listed at Global sysops/Local discussions. If that's still valid feel free to add it to the /Local discussions page instead.

34. Revoke access on srwiki (15 admins, 14 active)

    This wiki explicitly opted in per Global sysops/Local discussions.

35. Revoke access on swwiki (14 admins, 6 active)
36. Revoke access on testwiki (94 admins, 10 active)
37. Revoke access on testwikidatawiki (38 admins, 3 active)

    Only if you include page creations as logged actions.

    Feel free to ignore the test wikis in general - I know test wikis are a special case, but listing them for completeness. Testwiki is already opted out.

38. Remove access on tlwiki (10 admins, 3 active)

    Only if you include page creations as admin actions

39. Remove access on uawikimedia (19 admins, 6 active)
40. Remove access on ukwiki (49 admins, 39 active)

    This wiki explicitly opted in per Global sysops/Local discussions.

41. Remove access on uzwiki (16 admins, 12 active)
42. Remove access on viwiktionary (11 admins, 4 active)
43. Remove access on wikifunctionswiki (11 admins, 8 active)
44. Remove access on wikimaniawiki (27 admins, 4 active)

Note that in all cases the abuse filter account is treated as an admin, so you may want to skip the ones with exactly 10 admins, and that I didn't look at the state of the wiki more closely than just running the numbers except in a few borderline cases. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 00:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've opted in the wikis that meet the opt-in criteria with no explicit opt-out discussion.

Regarding the opt-out parts, since all of the wikis above were opted in when the opt-in criteria were met and have not explicitly wanted to opt out, I would likely only want to opt them out if the community explicitly objects to having global sysops. I'm leaving this open for some time in case another steward would like to give a comment on that. EPIC (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

For non-content wikis, I'd want to see an actual local discussion - activity can be sporadic depending on what happens to be going on, leaving them in periods with no actual local support. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

(non-steward comment) I agree with EPIC and Xaosflux. I am not aware that the criteria mentioned on the Global sysops page mean that wikis automatically change status depending on the number of admins. Rather it seems to me that those were the original inclusion criteria for building the list, to be changed later because of local consensuses. -- MF-W 12:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I oppose unnecessary "revoking" of wikis from the global sysop opt-in set, while supporting adding wikis where needed. In the vast majority of cases, there is little evidence that the wiki will be better off without global sysops. Also I've to agree with MF-Warburg - the GS rules could be made clearer as I've seen some global sysops adhere to the conservative interpretation of only working on wikis with less than X active admins. Leaderboard (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

system users and bots should certainly not be counted in determining if there are sufficient local admins on a project. (e.g. from above sqwiki says 11, but only has 9 actual people-admins). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not? The page global sysop mentions no such requirement, and has no mention of the admin count and activity criteria being "legacy" or "historical" as discussed above. And I find the ratchet-style reasoning shown above (you can be automatically opted-in but not opted-out) absurd. Global sysops have a specific defined scope, and of course their usage of the rights should be enforced to only wikis that fall within that scope. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Global sysops predate system users being flagged as admins, so of course that wasn't considered in the policy. To be a little frank, you are taking a much stronger position on this than the community writ large, and should maybe take a step back and consider who your position is helping and why you would want to continue to push it so hard... – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)