Stewards' noticeboard

Hello,

after discussing the subject on fr.wikisource, following this message on our Scriptorium from User:Linedwell, the community of fr-wikisource has a consensus for keeping User:Phe's admins rights active.

Please, do not remove those rights. Thanks ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

IMHO by the lecture of the policy, Phe should at least be posting something (4.2.- "[t]he notified users should then post information to the local community about the notice of maximum inactivity they received from the stewards in order to discuss the matter", "the messaged user could provide evidence to the stewards about the local community's decision"). Point 4.3 allows us, however, to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. I do not hold strong opinions in this case though but this has been subject of discussion in the past. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

Or locals could simply set up their own policy to avoid it? — regards, Revi 13:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

How do we set up our own policy, and control tools, please ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

@Hsarrazin: The policy AAR was set so that advanced rights holders were not "set and forget". So a community needs to come up with a reasonable policy and approach to manage advanced rights holders who do not edit and interact with a community for 2 years (considered the maximum allowed.) What a local policy entails was left to local communities as stewardry was more concerned with having a good outcome rather than describe the input. The policy gives some examples of existing processes, and the list supplementary to the policy should link to each community's prescribed policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

@Hsarrazin: I closed this issue as not done (so Phe still has admin permission), since there was a strong voice of the community. But, as it was said, it would be a good thing to have a local policy (since Phe was inactive for quite a long time). einsbor _talk 12:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

According to this tool, the 2 sysops of mrwitionary did not make any logged actions / edits in the past 2 years, however, they are missed from the AAR data. I don't see any local inactivity policy that is more stringent than global. Is this an omission on the bot? Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

See Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies. I don't like their inactivity policy but the way AAR is currently written not much we can do about it. --Rs chen 7754 19:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

6 years inactivity and at least one mr speaker must be sysop at all times, or else no AAR, wow, this is one of the weakest AAR I had ever see. AAR should be like, IMHO, CU/OS policy. Local AAR can be stronger than our AAR but not weaker. Slight delays are ok, 4 years different, IMHO, isn't. We might have to work out something in the future. I concede it will not be easy to change AAR though.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

There's no question that such policy is designed to willfully exclude AAR from applying there and at the same time avoid setting a formal activity review process as there's no way the conditions stablished in there would ever happen; nor it looks an active local community there exists thus no formal review can happen without one (Evasion (law) comes to my mind, mentioned here in a docendi causa way). The wording of the text in Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies is deficient and WP:BATTLE -ish, and the link is broken too. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

Shall we just void this nonsense policy and leave them a message, telling them to give us a more proper policy or else follow our AAR.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

• There are a lot of problems with this project, including a forced consensus decided on another project that they're applying to this one. Praxidicae (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

I'd like to thank 1997kB for fixing the link to the so-called policy, a text that was proposed, voted and approved by the same user if the link's right (!!!). Sorry, no, that is not valid. Projects are not the personal possession of one individual. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

Yes that is the correct link, but pinging mr speaking user to know that what exactly is written there. @QueerEcofeminist: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

@1997kB:, thanks for the ping, in addition to the mrwitionary, [[w:mr]] has same issues we have no review process and crat and sysops are absent since ages, there are few sysops who should be removed according to w:mr:विकिपीडिया:चावडी/ध्येय_आणि_धोरणे/जुने_प्रस्ताव#दीर्घकाल_अकार्यरत_प्रचालक/प्रशासक_आपोआप_पदमुक्ती_कालावधी_प्रस्ताव this, we need to remove sysop flags from many but that has not happened (It says after one year of inactivity the flag should be removed!). And I agree with MarcoAurelio that above mentioned policy is not valid at all.

I request here that, with mrwitionary, lets check all mr projects for sysop activities as our crat(on mrwiki) is unwilling to implement the policies decided by community on mrwiki. And other mr projects don't have any of such valid policies. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

• As per this both the sysops with no activity for last two years.(No Valid policy)</nowiki>
• As per this Both the sysops with no activity for last two years. (No policy at all!)</nowiki>
• As per this Only one active sysops out of 8
• User:Kaustubh, User:Sankalpdravid, User:Rahuldeshmukh101, User:कोल्हापुरी, User:सुभाष राऊत haven't used their sysop rights for years (from more than one year to four years) Where we have policy on this project which says sysops flag should be removed after one year of inactivity. And crat haven't implemented it yet for no good reasons. </nowiki> QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for examining the mr projects. I completely agree with you. Proposed policies without consensus should not have been implemented. They inactive admins should be desysopped per AAR policy. I am really starting to doubt Mahitgar's responsibility and actions as a bureaucrat on mrwiki. I foresee that we will find more cases about this, in which case, I think he should be desysopped. Masum Reza ^📞 20:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

He was removed as a crat from mrwiki a few years back. As for his other rights, that would have to go to RFC. And if this policy was indeed written and approved by 1 user I would say that we should proceed with AAR. --Rs chen 7754 20:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the note. As you said, it looks like he was stripped off all of his advanced permissions including sysop in 2017 due to admin abuse]. I am still worried about the so-called policies and guidelines he implemented there, while he was still a crat and a sysop. Mrwiki should not hold control over its sister projects. Yet it looks like he implemented a policy ten years ago that SWMT members should stay away from mrwiki, and mrwikitionary. Some SWMT members has been warned of it. Camouflaged Mirage first brought it to our attention on IRC. I propose that a native Marathi speaker look into the list of policies and guidelines Mihitgar implemented on Mr projects, and after evaluating them, discard them if the consensus agrees. Masum Reza ^📞 20:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

I have removed mr.wiktionary "policy" from the list of local policies per the confirmation of QueerEcofeminist that the document was unilateraly decided by an individual. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

@MarcoAurelio: Are you going to rerun AAR for this wiki or wait until next time? --Rs chen 7754 04:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

@Rschen7754: Yes, I'll post the relevant messages today. I got distracted yesterday with some other issues. Apologies. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

• Thanks, I am aware that User:Mahitgar , were desysoped, But the current crat User:अभय नातू is no different than them, they are enough hostile to SWMT team and anyone working on anti-vandalism on mrwiki. w:mr:साचा_चर्चा:Delete shows that, we need to fix Delete template which is used in cross wiki work. But even after many requests from many SWMT members they are reluctant to fix that. On top of it they are saying I don't have time to fix it(Their recent replies translates to these exact words!).

• mrwiki policies of inactive sysops haven't been implemented by User:अभय नातू, who happens to be inactive crat(in terms of crat/syosp actions!)
• I think, I should start an RFC on this and lets deal mrwiki issue differently as, Thanks to almost absent sysops, not just this but we are facing many other issues too. (women editors getting harassed and stalked, huge copyvios, unlimited protections on pages and sockfarms!)
• But other mr projects have no valid policy around active sysops so, stewards can/should look into it for sure. thanks. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 01:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

• I think the best course of action forward will be

1. Re-run the AAR (as both are way pass 2 years per normal AAR), leave them a message as per normal, best is we can write it in mr, maybe QueerEcofeminist can help. This is due to security risks.
2. Have a note for them to accept either SWMT actions or else they will be remove from GSwiki set. There is only one choice out of these two. If they are removed from GSwiki set and they need help, we are willing to help so long as they have a new consensus for them to be added back. In this vein, clarify usage of GR (I am so afraid to use my rights there with the explict risk of being blocked). This is for mrwikitionary
3. Lastly, with the mrwp issues, it will be a separate RFC.

• Best Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

I'd say, lets just focus on this thread on the mr.wikt invalid AAR "policy". Other issues should probably deserve their own discussion, and probably not on this noticeboard but on RFC or somewhere else :-) Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

Yes, as I've said elsewhere we could spend all day trying to fix all the broken wikis with corrupt admins and still have problems at the end of it. (I don't expect you to agree publicly since it's not "proper" for a steward to say something like that, of course). --Rs chen 7754 01:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

1. Comment Comment mr:wikt: In light of no active community they cannot be determining that a policy acts ad infinitum for a WMF wiki.. They should be considered to have no operable admin review policy, and it should be considered voided forthwith, and if there is an active community they can develop a new and acceptable local AAR by the time of the next review.

   One administrator not editing for 10+ years should not be considered an administrator for an inactive community by any stretch of imagination, and should be automatically removed. We can pick up the remaining admin next year, if no updated policy.

2. Comment Comment We probably should be looking for a further update to the AAR that any administrator who is inactive at a wiki for a period of five years (pick another number if you wish) will automatically have their rights removed, irrespective of any local administrative policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

Just noting here that I posted yesterday the notifications on mr.wiktionary so AAR is now running on mr.wiktionary. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Reply

After a short discussion on IRC yesterday, I would like to mention here too the fact that the inactivity level of mrwiki admins (e.g. no logged action since 2009) affects the workflow of Wikidata. We can't delete items until they delete their articles, but it doesn't look like they do that. OFF to QueerEcofeminist; it's my country. :) Bencemac (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

Now the AAR is done. We should look into the problem of mrwiki not welcoming SWMT actions. I am considering asking them on their village pumps (both mrwiki and mrwikitionary) on their stand. They cannot have the cake and eat it too. Per their welcome to SWMT members, such as this, they seemed to say "Marathi Wikipedia by consensus requests that SWMT members should avoid edits at mr-wiki and mr-wiktionary" and expanded "We at mr wiki community are self sufficient in routine patrol of mr wiki and mr wiktionary, we would still need meta support to control only interwiki spammers, as and when that happens, we still need support of steward/global sysop/SWMT at our sister projects namely mr wikibooks and mr wikiquote, we wish steward/global sysop/SWMT team to avoid edits at mr wiki and mr wiktionary other than those that control interwiki spammers. Mahitgar (He who knows, wants to know and loves to keep others informed) 14:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC) With reference to above discussion we posted a poll at Marathi language Wikipedia in above respect at following page: Poll for opting out of SWMT and Global Sysop Interference arrived at a consensus to that effect,".

I did not see any poll and they are still in the wikiset for GR/GS. For me personally, I fear to do any edits there as I am afraid I will be blocked there. I will suggest we give the community two options. Either they allow our intervention or have a poll saying to the effect they do not want our intervention which is then we will just leave it to them to handle. To that effect, both mrwiki and wikitionary will be removed from GS wikiset and GR too (I don't mind that, I don't want to misclick and get blocked).

Just to note this is regarding GS/GR wikisets, hence, it is on SN. Rest of the issues will be dealt with later on a separate RFC.

CC previous participants @Bencemac, QueerEcofeminist, Billinghurst, Rschen7754, and MarcoAurelio:@Masumrezarock100, 1997kB, and Praxidicae:.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

I don't want mrwiki and mrwikitionary to be opted out of GR because unlike GR, GS is truly global just because of some so called consensus that happened 10 years ago. Warning/blocking a particular group of good-faith volunteers from editing should not be tolerated. I am reminding again that the proposer of this ten year old proposal, was stripped off his admin rights in 2017 because of "admin abuse". It is quite clear to me he wanted to just push his POV on others, which is contrary to our mission - "Anyone can contribute to wikimedia projects". mrwiki had to option to opt out from GS wiki, and they did so. The situation back then isn't the same as now. It doesn't seem like they are now very "self-sufficient" in routine patrol of mrwiki. Most of the admins are inactive there. The so called consensus ten years ago is not valid anymore. Masum Reza ^📞 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

Hi,

After proposing for the rights to be kept on ro.wiktionary, following this discussion with User:Robbie SWE, the community of ro-wiktionary has a consensus for keeping the rights active. We will also start work on developing a local policy to tackle this issue. Please do not remove those rights for now. Thank you! — KlaudiuMihăilă ^Message 23:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

@KlaudiuMihaila: Done. Thanks for letting us know. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

I noticed that the voter eligibility criteria do not mention a situation where someone might be blocked on Meta-Wiki but otherwise meets the criteria. What would be the procedure for such an event? Vermont (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

Being blocked is a function of meta administration and actions on this wiki, so it is not particularly an issue for stewards. While eligible to vote they cannot due to their behaviour; eligibility to vote is just that, it is not a right to vote. The blocked user should have thought of this when they were undertaking whatever got them blocked. [Remembering they have the right to appeal a block on their user talk page.] I could see that through an act of generosity that an administrator could suspend a block for a short period to allow a user to vote, though that would be the generosity of the meta admin.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

@Tegel, Mardetanha, RadiX, and Jon Kolbert: Please see the request page. - 49.144.70.243 14:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

Based on Talk:Global_sysops#Requirement_for_Babel_boxes, it appears that global sysops do not believe that m:Global sysops is a policy that applies to all global sysops. Could a steward advise as to what the top-level policy is to govern global sysop actions? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

There is no such confusion. Please do not manipulate statements. Also, to note that stewards do not make the rules, nor do they regulate meta pages, nor are they the bosses. Please educate yourself to the role of Stewards. You are just misrepresenting and refusing to listen to opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

Agreed, and this forum shopping is highly inappropriate. Drop the stick, already. Waggie (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

I will not say this as forum shopping as it's a right stewards grant so this notification is useful. Just a note, I am assuming good faith at a higher degree than most will do on the basis that not all are familiar with how meta works. However, since there is a discussion on that page as well which is the usual page we discuss GS issue on, and this duplication and separation of comments / ideas is not useful, so there is no point this thread go on any further. Let me close this thread before any further disruption. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Reply

• Stewards
• Noticeboards