Stewards' noticeboard

The current SRG archive is>600 kB and over 1000 threads long. Time to set up by-week archives? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Reply

Restoring; not sure why this got archived without any reply. Can we please do something about this? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

Probably, yes. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

@1234qwer1234qwer4 I'd agree with weekly archives. I'm not sure if @جار الله's @JarBot supports that though. Could that be clarified, please? Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

Hi @Martin Urbanec: I will schedule the bot to archives SRG page weekly. It may take several days before scheduling the task. Best>--جار الله (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

That would mean changing the naming scheme in the middle of the year, right? What do we do with pages like Steward requests/Global/2021-10? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

@جار الله I'm not 100% sure we understood each other well -- the intention is to have one archive page per week (instead of current per month). Would that be possible?

@1234qwer1234qwer4 It's first week of October, so I'd just move that to the archive page for first week of October. Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

The problem is that a month does not have exactly four weeks. It would make more sense to name the archives by calendar week. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

@Martin Urbanec: I understand you now, you want to make archive pages archive according to weeks of the year instead of months, yes this is possible. Such as Steward requests/Global/2021-w50, Steward requests/Global/2021-w51 and so on.--جار الله (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

Maybe this is not the right place to ask about it, but are there any plans to make the statements and Q&A sections translatable using mw:Extension:Translate for the coming election? - Xbspiro (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

I am not sure there are plans, but it can be done, yes. --Base (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

@Xbspiro: Translation only really work well on mostly static pages, less so for dynamic text, ie. question pages. I would suggest that the self-nominating statements are the only component that could readily fit into the translation: ns. Have a look at the election system pages for 2021 Special:PrefixIndex/Stewards/Elections 2021/ — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

Actually, I have translated some statements earlier, but the drop-down menu used on the statements pages for language selection stopped working for me sometime last year(?) - hence my question. And it would be nice to get notifications when the original page gets updated. My guess is that even though statement translations are encouraged, they are largely overlooked by the translator community as statements do not get marked for translation via the extension. Regarding the question pages, I see where you are coming from, and I sincerely doubt that we would get many translations of those. Nevertheless I would still see them valuable, especially in contrast with the statements. - Xbspiro (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

Great feedback, and thanks for raising the issue. Aaaaaand looking at Template:Sr-elections 2021, you'd have to say that it would greatly simplify things. I'd say that we just need to get someone to setup Template:Sr-elections 2022 ahead of time so that the stewards are faced with a piece of easiness. Always a case making things easy, or we fall back to what worked last time. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

Oh and you said confirmations in your subject, so that is special:PrefixIndex/Stewards/Confirm/2021 and someone working on a success/derivative to Template:Steward confirmations statement. Template:Snippets/personal information] needs doing, and that looks like a good one to convert right now and have general usage. I might poke Meta:Babel to see if there are any takers. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

Lock evasion is a redlink but it's used as a rationale for locks occasionally. At Global locks it says that evasion of a global ban is reason for a lock, but not 'evading' a "global lock". A specific context is Steward_requests/Global/2021-05#Global_lock_for_Kashmorwiki where I asked this question before AmandaNP locked the account and neither the blocking admin or locking steward answered the question. That editor wasn't being disruptive at all, so the and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock criteria was obviously not met. I saw some more "lock evasion" locks (by Amanda, but I'm guessing other stewards do these too) on my watchlist so posing the question now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

ProcrastinatingReader really? Lock evasion is synonymous to block evasion. Does everything need to be minutely defined? If someone has their account locked, you think that we should gives them a free pass to continue editing with a sockpuppet? That is naive. It is up to the steward's judgment to what they do with the sockpuppet accounts and that seems reasonable. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

I will also note that the section you are referencing is the "making requests" section, and is not meant to limit a steward's action. That section would not necessarily mention user unidentified lock evasion, as that is typically only evident from checkuser data. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Reply

Completely serious, yeah. The guidance talks about global ban evasion, it seems like it would talk about lock evasion if it meant to talk about lock evasion. Then you get circular issues, as in that case, where local projects won’t consider an unblock due to ‘lock evasion’ and stewards won’t unlock because a local project hasn’t unblocked the editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

You're missing the point. That list is guidance for when someone can request a lock. That's it. It is not there to give guidance to stewards.

Stewards are locking vandals, and problematic editors, and doing it upon request or through some of their CU checks of problematic xwiki accounts. If they are finding sockpuppets, they are sockpuppets, and they are making the assessment of what to do. At a local wiki there should be no need to block a locked account, and if it is blocked first then so be it. Stewards would not typically be pursuing a user only at one wiki. The cases like you mention are very rare, and those users can email stewards. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

If I remember correctly, the editor in question said they emailed stewards multiple times and didn’t get an answer. It’s quite literally limbo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

If you have concerns about how stewards are managing their mail queue, probably better that as a straight request and conversation, rather than a surrogate argument. Stewards should answer reasonable questions about their processes, and should be able to summarily tell the community about the state of their mail queue. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

My own straight request here was to see how these locks work, since (as I said before) it seems like these just put editors into limbo. I posed a specific question before (which I thought was quite reasonable) at the link I gave but Amanda silently locked without answering it. So I'd like an answer to that, ideally by a steward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

Hello @ProcrastinatingReader, a steward speaking. Thanks for your question – I'm trying to answer it below. Please note I'm not @AmandaNP, and I can't speak on her behalf – everything I say here is my own interpretation of the facts.

As far as I can see, the reason for the Kashmorwiki lock is simple: the CU block by @Mz7 shows English Wikipedia (as a project) considers the reincarnation as a disruptive one. Since the user previously contributed as Shahoodu, which is also locked (by myself), and is not active elsewhere, it's enough to justify a lock (in addition to that, [1] is also an interesting summary of the user's history).

For an appeal, personally, I do unlock accounts when a local appeals procedure was successful (especially on big established wikis, like English Wikipedia); [2] is an example of a previous case of a CU block+lock. I generally refer users to pursue local appeal first if possible -- that's because locals usually know the appellant better than the locking steward.

I think English Wikipedia should feel free to resolve the appeal as it wishes to -- if the block is removed, the account will very likely be unlocked (unless @AmandaNP knows something that I was unable to find even after thorough review). If on-wiki access is required for the appeal procedure (ie. if off-wiki process, like UTRS and/or AC, is not acceptable for some reason), I can imagine unlocking the account temporarily solely for the purposes of the appeal.

For the email queue, unfortunately, it's currently filled with a lot of mails (nearly a thousand of them) . We're aware of the problem, unfortunately, it takes some time to process them all, and we're all hard-working volunteers . I'll find an email from Kashmorwiki and reply to them later today.

I hope this all makes sense. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

Probably worth considering less hard blocking so many ranges and doing so so often with the only means of contact being email. That you have 1000 email sounds like you have an upstream problem that needs addressing. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

@Billinghurst We're aware of that issue, and discussing potential solutions internally (one of the options is using a better-scaling unblock system), but so far, no decision has been made. Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ I am reflecting, not criticising. I am just reporting what I am seeing when attending to local block requests that are global requests, and the number of hard hard hard blocks that I am seeing, and comparing it to my time with that button. There are positive and negative consequences for actions and inactions. I would say that while looser restrictions let through some more spam or more LTAs, it also blocks less valid users, and there is a larger volunteer pool to manage these issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

Hello Stewards,

This year we have the sixth election of Persian Wikipedia Advisory Council (a body similar to the Arbitration Committee) using SecurePoll just like the English Wikipedia Arb Com elections. The arrangements necessary are listed on phab:T292685. We need two steward volunteers to serve as scrutineers for the election. We would prefer if scrutineers do not have much involvement with fawiki in order to help preserve the integrity of the election. The current timetable will have voting between 22 October and 4 November. Based on last year's election, the turnout is expected to be about 100 to 150 votes, so the task would not be too time-consuming. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Please ping me in your responses. Thanks! Mahdy Saffar (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

Hi Mahdy Saffar! I can volunteer to it. Best, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 20:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

I can help too @Mahdy Saffar:. stanglavine ^msg 20:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

@Stanglavine: and @Tks4Fish: Thanks to both of you. Mahdy Saffar (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Reply

• Stewards
• Noticeboards