Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

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

Temporary opt-in for ukwiki to global sysops set[edit]


As you probably already now, Russia invaded Ukraine five days ago. Unfortunately this resulted in a significant decrease in activity of Ukrainian Wikipedia administrators: some of them are now taking part in the war, some are volunteering for medical or civil defence, while others have a significantly disrupted Internet connection (editing Wikipedia from a bomb shelter is problematic). Also unfortunately, this resulted in an increase in activity of vandals, notably pro-Russian trolls.

As a result, Ukrainian Wikipedia community requests to temporarily allow global sysops to act on Ukrainian Wikipedia. You can find the community consensus here: uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (адміністрування)#Глобальні адміністратори. This is valid for the duration of martial law in Ukraine (i.e. 1 month at the moment).

We kindly ask global sysops to do only non-controversial actions, such as reverting obvious vandalism and blocking vandals, but not engaging in content disputes (nor speedy deletion of non-vandalism, for example). The main motivation is the need to revert vandalism during European night: many of our administrators have to spend nights in bomb shelters, giving space to various Russian vandals.

Thanks in advance for your help — NickK (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: This is incredibly sad to hear 😣 I have removed ukwiki from the Opted-out of global sysop wikis wikiset. Please let us know if there is anything else we can do to help you and your community. Slava Ukraini! -- TNT (talk • she/her) 22:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily removed ukwiki at MediaWiki:HideButtonsFromNonGsProjects.js. Please ping me or any IA when gs opt-in has been disabled. Thanks and stay safe. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax: Can the script be tweaked so that IA won't have to edit it manually whenever there is a change in wikiset#7? See gswiki.js by Martin. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible solution. @Martin Urbanec: any objections? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax Sorry, for some reason, I didn't see this ping. No objection from me Face-smile.svg. Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how long does that request take? Maybe that should at least be cached if done. Scripts like markAdmins are updated manually too. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
15:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: It depends, but normally less than one second. Try querying yourself at ApiSandbox. According to my browser console, $.getJSON() took 346 miliseconds, while that of mw.Api() was 369. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NickK: Courtesy ping that one month has passed—can I assume that the ukwiki community still wants this in place? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 10:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheresNoTime: Yes, this should remain valid for the duration of martial law in Ukraine (until 25 April so far, possibly extended). The activity somewhat recovered but is not close to pre-war levels yet — NickK (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NickK: Forgot to reply, sorry—that's fine :) ~TNT (talk • she/her) 19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NickK, 3 months passed since last check-in; I assume this is still in place (given the circumstances) but can you confirm? Thanks! — regards, Revi 10:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@-revi: Interesting question. We have a rebound in activity, we have appointed temporary admins so the need is not that urgent. However, the community approval still stands (it is valid until the end of martial law in Ukraine), and we still face some lack of activity, particularly during EEST night. I assume that we continue but I will open a new community discussion on it — NickK (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I speak for the steward team et al that we're happy to keep this in place for as long as the community feels it is appropriate :-) — TNT (talk • she/her) 11:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove User:Metaverse from Global renamer group and revert #91629 rename[edit]

Dear Stewards, User Metaverse (previously DutchTina) vanished Metaverse account without their permission (see [1]), and later on the same day to grab that username they made a request to rename DutchTina to Metaverse (see #91629). In their request, they haven't provided any info that they vanished the same account a few hours ago.

Now upon asked by Steward BRPever about the vanishing they were not able to provide a VRT ticket, which actually does not exist as being a renamer and having access to rename queue myself, there was no such request on 29th April or even earlier in last month.

So as per the Global renamer policy page I beleive this is a serious misuse of the right and thus I am requesting their right to be revoked. I am also requesting the reversing of rename #91629 as such. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@1997kB I want to quickly acknowledge this message – thanks for raising it to our attention. We're having a look. Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's especially ironic that (unless I've missed something), the account "Metaverse" could have been properly usurped at w:WP:CHUU after waiting a week rather than inventing a fake excuse. * Pppery * it has begun 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Since they are sysop, anyone could have accepted such request despite it being similar to sulutil:METAVERSE with 196 edits. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see this being brought up and called out. This was absolutely an inappropriate rename and vanishing and rights should be stripped from DutchTina whether it was intentional or not because its shows a wild ignorance of policy or total incompetence with the tool. Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Phab account was also renamed ref phab:T307267 RhinosF1 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: There are multiple redirects from DutchTom's userspaces (previous username of DutchTina) which are about to be, or have already been, re-redirected to Metaverse thanks to redirect fixing bots. They should be checked before re-renaming so as not to confuse the bots. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to worried about those, bots will re-update them after the rename. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Won't DutchTina be re-renamed without leaving redirects? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the redirects will be overwritten, so the end result will be DutchTom -> MetaVerse -> DutchTina where bot will fix DutchTom to point to DutchTina? If really needed we can probably run some limited test by creating some new accounts. — regards, Revi 16:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good news is that I can only find one broken redirect in Metaverse's userspace, which should be moved back to its original place. Bad news: All redirects in DutchTom's userspace, except for .js/.css ones, are now broken. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bot does not fix them immediately; DoubleRedirect list is cached and updated periodically, and as such it needs some time to catch up. — regards, Revi 16:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They will not be listed at DoubleRedirects, but BrokenRedirects. For example, see af:User talk:DutchTom. Normally bots will tag it for deletion. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues @1997kB, Pppery, Praxidicae, NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh, RhinosF1, and Martin Urbanec:, since I'm the responsible for accept this request, I ask apologies for not check properly that occurred an usurpation on Metaverse account (however, the log of this rename doesn't appeared on queue). I'll gonna revert my changes if all you agree with this sanction against DutchTina. --Eta Carinae (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Eta Carinae, don't worry about this too much :). If the usurpation did not happen, the request wouldn't be approved either.
Ad a revert, personally, I'd prefer leaving it to a steward – it's probably best done together with reversing the vanishing itself (and declaring it as inappropriate), and reversals of RTV requests are usually done by the stewards. Thanks for the offer though. Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eta Carinae: Just out of curiosity, was it written "name too similar to Renamed user 75654256"? With "XXX (usurped)" it appears and I always thought that it appeared because of the previous renaming and not because it was really similar! Btw don't worry, it can happen and imho it's definitely not your fault since no one could expect such a thing (they asked to be renamed twice and never mentioned the vanish). I confirm that I can't find any ticket in renamers queue concerning User:Metaverse. It would be important to have their answer on this. Btw imho is also worrying that, just after the vanish, they started to process all requests in any languages. I hope there is an explanation for this behavior! Superpes15 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Superpes15, no, it doesn't appeared that Metaverse was renamed before. The only conflict with antispoof was with the METAVERSE account (the reason why I rejected the request at the first time), and now, I know why this happen. Eta Carinae (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's clear! Thanks for the information :) Superpes15 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no objection will be arisen I'll soon revoke "current" Metaverse's renamer right. I'll be open to let them choose another name instead of DutchTina, but Metaverse owner must be restored. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For cleanliness of the logs, it might be preferable to first rename back to DutchTina regardless, before renaming to anything else. Just a thought. Effeietsanders (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vituzzu: Considering the consensus here and in the ongoing RfC that the rename was innapropriate, I think both renames (the usurpation and the rename) shall be undone. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment, @AmandaNP: already removed Metaverse from global renamers. --Eta Carinae (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a RFC be filled as per Global renamers#Removal of access? -- CptViraj (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely: Requests for comment/Revoke A's global renamer permission. --Novak Watchmen (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not getting it going sooner, but I have started it now Requests for comment/Revoking Metaverse's global rename permission. -- Amanda (she/her) 14:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the RfC. The removal is supported/endorsed. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but shouldn't the rename be reversed, per what discussed above and required by many in the RFC? --PercyMM 13:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support Yes, I think it became clear that this name change needs to be reverted. Ciell (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can a steward act on this? Thanks. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Sorry it took so long & thanks for the reminder. Done, both renames should now be reversed. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ipinfo permission for GS[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator:
task T309318

Recently IPInfo extension was deployed on all WMF sites. As GS is treated as admin on small wikis, they should be granted ipinfo-view-full and ipinfo-view-log permission. Stang 14:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stang: Looking at T307164 and T296499, I'm not too sure and this might need further input — TNT (talk • she/her) 14:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheresNoTime m:Special:Permalink/23099554#What_about_global_rights_holder 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filing the task @TheresNoTime. It's all a bit messy. While this commit enabled log access to sysops, it looks like this might be an oversight. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. Do the same applies to GRs as per the discussion Bayer linked above? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ipinfo-view-log is not needed 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 09:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed — I've set T309318 as stalled pending AHT input. As such, this request likely won't be progressed until we get clarification (just FYI Stang) — TNT (talk • she/her) 10:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment/Removal of advanced rights[edit]

Hello, I have made the RFC above that would affect how some requests at SRP are processed, specifically the removal of bureaucrat/CU/OS etc. when a user is desysopped. --Rschen7754 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping archiving completed SRG requests[edit]

This isn't a RfC (and I'm not sure we'd need one anyway..), but just a quick question for a simple matter — what are people's thoughts on no longer archiving completed SRG requests? It serves very little purpose, as the block/lock reason is recorded in the block/lock log, and a number of stewards already link to the report diff in the additional reason too.

For clarity, by "completed" I mean requests which have resulted in a global block/lock.

We would continue to archive denied requests, and should probably delay the removal of completed requests by a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 30 minutes?) to allow review — TNT (talk • she/her) 07:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just to also note: this would mean we can clear down SRG a bit quicker, and hopefully not hit the template limit as often — TNT (talk • she/her) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of no longer archiving otherwise successfully processed request. My opinion is really just rooted in the rule: Stop and ask yourself why type of mind set. Operator873 connect 08:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personal take is: if majority of stewards used the permalink every time they fulfill SRG request I have no problem with it. (and 30 minutes are too short, few hours at a minimum.) — regards, Revi 08:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I am not sure keeping archives of (mostly) locked spambots/LTAs is useful (e.g. WP:AIV ain't archived at all AFAIK). On the other hand, I think I remember a discussion not long ago disfavouring not archiving that page. I do not use the permalink when dealing with SRG lock requests though. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find the archives useful. Usually when I am looking for (b)locks that was carried out by someone else. I still think keeping them is a good idea.--BRP ever 10:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]