Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2016-07

Rights-cleanup for wikimania2014wiki

Resolved.

Will try to do tomorrow if nobody beats me first, but since phab:T105675 is fixed, per Closing_projects_policy#Definition_of_actions, user rights from that wiki needs to be removed. —MarcoAurelio 23:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Users affected

1. Base (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
2. CT Cooper (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
3. Chris McKenna (WMUK) (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
4. Danny B. (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
5. Deror avi (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
6. EdSaperia (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
7. Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
8. HJ Mitchell (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
9. Herahussain (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
10. Jdforrester (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
11. Jknight1603 (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
12. John Cummings (WMUK) (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
13. Joseph Seddon (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
14. KTC (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
15. KimiLawrie (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
16. Kiril Simeonovski (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
17. Lawsonstu (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
18. OrsolyaVirág (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
19. Reedy (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
20. Rock drum (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
21. Samballand99 (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
22. Thehelpfulone (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
23. Varnent (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
24. WereSpielChequers (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
25. Wikimania2014Programme (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)
26. Ата (talk • edits • logs • UserRights • activity • CentralAuth • email • verify 2FA)

—MarcoAurelio 11:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Any objections? —MarcoAurelio 11:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Done —MarcoAurelio 17:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 17:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Global bot request

Hi fellow stewards. I request your input on SRB where a request for a global bot flag requires further input. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio 11:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 16:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia controversy of 2013

Hi there. hr.wikipedia has had egregious issues with basic processes as described at Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia, which escalated into a highly publicized national embarrassment. I haven't been involved since that scandal had faded, and have no idea what happened afterwards. How has the situation been resolved, have the stewards observed an improvement? TIA. --Joy (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Allow some kinds of snowball close?

In Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Global_sysop_for_DAR7, User:Ruslik0 closed the request for "It makes no sense to continue this discussion". However, this is against Meta:Snowball, which says no discussion can be closed early. I proposedpropose to accept some kinds of snowball close if there're clear consensus against something.--GZWDer (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

SRGP is better questioned at SN, moved. — regards, Revi 12:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Where did you propose this? I can't find it. --MF-W 13:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Meta:Snowball says "Don't close discussions early; editors from the English Wikipedia, please note that we don't do Snowball closures on Meta-Wiki." I think this should be changed.--GZWDer (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess he meant "propose", not "proposed". --Stryn (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that early closure can perfectly be covered under IAR. There was no point to continue that vote knowing beforehand that it won't succeed. It won't return any benefit to Meta nor the candidate to do so. I've also closed this user RfA earlier for the same reasons, and did so in good faith. —MarcoAurelio 16:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing any that vote knowing beforehand that it won't succeed is just Snowball clause, which is prohibited by Meta:Snowball. Perhaps Meta:Snowball needs to be updated.--GZWDer (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the justification for snowball, it is more to prevent obviously successful discussions from being closed early than the other way around. Early users here on Meta-Wiki were concerned with things being pushed through without proper comment; it is always acceptable IMO to close requests that will obviously fail early (though not prematurely, if that makes sense) for the sake of everyone. I think IAR is a good thing here, though it could be explicitly updated in the Meta policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 --Rschen7754 18:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The snowball clause in enwiki works like this. It is only used by requests that will obviously fail early, but not obviously successful discussions. This is why I think Meta:Snowball should be rewritten - the snowball in Meta should be worked like in enwiki, not "different from enwiki" as Meta:Snowball says.--GZWDer (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was in some sense application of IAR on my part. The user clearly misunderstood the scope of the global sysop usergroup. They, in fact, applied for a position of "a global administrator" that does not exist. So, it could be theoretically rejected without any discussion whatsoever. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we all agree that Ruslik0's actions were fine, so there's no need to continue with this discussion in here but rather on Meta:Babel or other more suitable place to discuss the amendment of the policy should the community wishes to do so. However IAR is also policy as well. —MarcoAurelio 11:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have re-read relevant policies including Meta:Snowball and Global sysops. I actually do not think the former (a local policy) applies to global user rights assignments by stewards. They are governed only by the respective global policies like the later, which says "The request will be approved by a steward if there is a consensus for the user to become a global sysop after a period of discussion of no less than two weeks." This does not prevent early closures of obviously unsuccessful requests. Meta:Snowball applies only to local discussions on meta or to cross-wiki requests for comments. Both are outside the steward's remit. The requests for global userrights can, in fact, be granted or rejected on timescales much shorter than two weeks - often only a few days. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The policy at GS requires a "period of discussion of no less than two weeks", as you quoted. It makes no sense to claim that they should be shorter because of that. --MF-W 18:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It requires it literally only in case of promotion but not rejection. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with Ruslik's interpretation of the policy, I see no issue running for two weeks. A person can withdraw if they so choose to close an application to stop any discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

p.s. If you don't want commentary you should ... {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}}  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wong128hk@zhwikiquote administrator term

Would any disinterested stewards please reconsider the one-year administrator term of this user? [1] I consider new steward NahidSultan has granted excessively long permission [2] for these reasons [3]:

1. Special:CentralAuth/验证码 has tried to support twice, but then blocked globally, so it should probably have not been counted.
2. Special:CentralAuth/Stang and Special:CentralAuth/Richard923888 have not edited on Chinese Wikiquote often, so their supports should probably have not been overvalued.
3. Frequent failure to have edit summaries may suggest the risk of leaving no reason for administrator's privileged actions, so I have considered the candidate not trustworthy. Having served a year before does not automatically justify similar renewal.
4. Stewards policy#Don't override consensus: "If there are any doubts as to whether or not an action should be performed, stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it." Therefore, I consider NahidSultan's granting one year without acknowledging the above points [4] too fast. If I were a disinterested steward, I would mark it on hold pending further review.
5. Steward handbook#Administrator and bureaucrat rights: "Three months is a common period for temporary rights."
6. Steward handbook#Temporary rights: "The precise duration is a matter of discretion; three months and six months appear to be the most common."

As a former steward and former Chinese Wikiquote bureaucrat who has been willing to yield the privilege to grant administrators to you stewards, shortening the permission to a fairer term seems better, then Chinese Wikiquote will hold a new vote as desired. Granting one year for our very small community looks too premature when the supports have not been unanimous. Thanks for understanding as I have appealed to NahidSultan unsuccessfully.--Jusjih (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the difference between 6 months and 12 months so significant? If that there was no consensus, as you think, then the permission should not have been granted at all. But the length of temporal administrative access has never been proportional to the number of votes that one got. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely yes. The differences among 1 month, 3, 6, 12 months, and permanent permissions are very significant and important. Otherwise, why should I have trusted you stewards by my resigning as a bureaucrat on many smaller Chinese wikis? I never insist that the permission should not have been granted at all, but I would consider granting 1 to 3 months only much more appropriate for this case. Perhaps from now on the length of temporal administrative access should be proportional to the number of votes that one got, but just a soft guideline, not a hard rule. Otherwise, should suspicious sock puppetry be counted? Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Outsider's point of view. If the community is requesting a shorter period of temporary administration, then that seems reasonable. If there is not seen to be a consensus for that community request, then that should be said. Denying the community's request is not appropriate. A steward in this case is solely to act as a crat to follow the community's consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

So a shorter term of 1 to 3 months is a much better compromise than 1 year or not at all. Please reconsider the term, or it will clearly affect how I comment in the next annual stewards' confirmation. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Threatening to mass-oppose steward confirmations is a terrible way to get us to do something. If there is a legitimate case to be made here, please make it. I would recommend listening to Billinghurst above - is there community consensus for the term to be shortened? Or is this your own opinion? And what practical difference would 6 months vs. 12 make; i.e. is the community dissatisfied with the performance of the admin currently? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say "vowing to mass-oppose" as saying "threatening to mass-oppose" may sound like unwillingness to consider criticism, which may discourage someone from supporting in steward confirmation. I am sending a concern about Wong128hk to your private email. When a steward action is questionable from the first place, you stewards should correct it. At the last time, we at Chinese Wikiquote simply voted for or against the candidate, without saying how long, so there has not been community consensus for one year.--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No, and you repeated the same type of behaviour with that last comment there. I highly recommend that you ask nicely if you want something done; threats won't go a long way. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A referendum has started to ask the community how long Wong128hk should have the current temporary term. I have tried to ask nicely as possible, only to see certain (not all) stewards not nice enough. Anyone disagreeing how annual steward confirmation works should start a discussion to try changing it, such as bi-annual confirmation for more senior stewards.--Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no issues with how the steward confirmations are run. I have issues with the immature and disrespectful way that you are approaching this issue. Thanks for making that request; I'll keep an eye on it, and would be glad to modify the length of temporary adminship granted based on local consensus. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Stewards' confirmation does include neutral comments, so please reconsider the phrases of "threatening to mass-oppose" and "the immature and disrespectful way".--Jusjih (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)