Stewards' noticeboard

There has been a consensus on ORWP about admin roles and I'm seeking help from bureaucrats to action.

Summary of consensus:

1. An admin is expected to make at least 50 administrative edits in a year.
2. Current admins without 50 administrative edits in the last three years will be removed from their roles, allowing active and experienced Wikipedians to become admins. If a former admin starts active editing contributing to (at least 10) admin tasks then they can reapply to become an admin again.
3. Experienced editors who have not been admins and have been in assisting admin tasks can apply to become new admins.

This consensus will affect two current admins: User:Ansumang and User:Odisha1. On behalf of the community I'll request for removal of their sysop roles. Thanks! Psubhashish (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

@Psubhashish Odisha1 already got their admin permissions removed three years ago [1] due to inactivity. Please request removal of admin permissions for Ansumang at SRP#Removal of access, linking your new inactivity policy (and this discussion if you want). Johannnes89 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

Thanks much. Done. Psubhashish (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

@Psubhashish: I removed the rights, removed the wiki from the AAR set [2] and updated Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies accordingly [3]. Let me know if I interpreted the policy incorrectly. Also, for transparency, could you perhaps document the inactivity policy somewhere, perhaps at or:ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ:ପରିଚାଳକ? EPIC (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

Thank you, @EPIC. I've updated w:or:ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ:ପରିଚାଳକ with the details from the consensus. I also noticed that a request for stepping down from adminship shared by another admin (Soumendrak) is still pending. I've updated the same at Permissions#Removal_of_access. Psubhashish (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

Many parts of Bot policy are written 16 years ago (see here), have little modifications, and no longer in line with current practice. The only thing useful as a policy is the global bot part. So I propose to extract these parts to a new page and then obsolete the current Bot policy. GZWDer (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

• A RFC is open at Requests for comment/Extract global bot policy to own page, please comment there. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

While browsing that page for other reasons, I discovered S are subject to same rule as an ordinary users, unlike the hardened rules for CU/OS/WMF-OIT/WMF-T&S/Crat/etc etc you name it.

I assume this was because SE requires admin privileges which in turn enforces hardened rules (and loginwiki CU forces them to the hardened rule), I think there is some benefit to using hardened rules for S role by default, unless global group has a special flag enforcing the hardened rule. Thoughts? — regards, Revi 20:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

I don't think this is displayed anywhere on-wiki, but the privileged password policy is applied on the steward global group as configured here and here. Taavi (talk!) 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

Seems like that page is showing the rules for "local groups", while certain global groups (such as stewards) already have enhanced rules. While our stewards are local stewards here on metawiki for technical reasons, they are also global users. Someone could put in a feature request to spin up Special:GlobalPasswordPolicies if they wanted to. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

Currently Special:CentralAuth/Albertpda is globally blocked, but not locally blocked in any wiki. However even if enwiki locally whitelisted this block, many actions (e.g. moving pages) would involve actions in Wikidata where the user can not edit. I have asked at User_talk:Martin_Urbanec#Special:CentralAuth/Albertpda but did not get an answer. GZWDer (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

@GZWDer As far as I can tell, @Albertpda has not appealed to the stewards since their English Wikipedia ban has been lifted. I am not currently aware of the circumstances that led to the global lock and therefore can't speak to whether an unlock/unblock is appropriate at this time. Albertpda should have access to SRG where they can submit an appropriate appeal, or they may email stewards@ or use UTRS if they prefer. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

Whether the global block should be lifted is a matter of debate (I am neutral on it), but what I concern in addition is if this user moved a page in enwiki, it will involve edits to Wikidata where this user can not edit but is not explicitly blocked. GZWDer (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

Well that mooted itself rather quickly. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

• Closing as the target user is now globally locked. They would need to appeal their lock to do anything else. Regarding the general concept above, if the wikidata community wants someone that is globally blocked to make changes to their project, they may also whitelist them on their project. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

The U4C has passed a motion unblocking User:Mighty Wire on de.wikt. We ask for your help with implementing this. On behalf of the U4C, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

Done de:wikt:Special:Redirect/logid/10692754 — JJMC89 (T ·C) 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Reply

• Stewards
• Noticeboards