Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2018-10
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Request for suppression of usernames from logs and all Wikimedia projects
Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Binksternet-related trolling, request the suppression of all usernames mentioned their from logs and all Wikimedia projects. Thanks, Lourdes 11:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Taken care of, but please note that this kind of request must be submitted to stewards
wikimedia.org. — regards, Revi 11:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC) - This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 14:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Administrators and bureaucrats abuse in Georgian Wikipedia
Dear stewards, please see this Request for comment. It is about an inexorable situation in the Georgian Wikipedia, the long-established. Every attempt to solve the problem locally fails again and again. So, please, do not be indifferent. Best regards, Deu. 06:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Inactivity policy Dutch Wiktionary
Dutch Wiktionary has had an inactivity policy for at least ten years. So I have added it on the relevant page. --MarcoSwart (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Vandal publicity
Okay, so while I'm not a user on any wikimedia projects, as a Twitter user I came here primarily after seeing a grossly repulsive tweet that seems to be written by a Wikipedia vandal. Their name is apparently WhenDatHotlineBling, and a celebrity gave him notability by replying to one of their tweets, which seems to be blowing up as of now and currently has over 400 likes: https://twitter.com/Nataliew1020/status/1052503688634388481 The celebrity who replied to this WhenDatHotlineBling guy is named Natalie Weaver, and the tweet that Hotline sent was extremely offensive and repulsive, and has the potential to make it onto the news.
That said, as the Wikimedia Foundation, should we make an article or project article about this particular incident since it involves the publicity of a Wikipedian? Jakecob85 (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's happened outside WMF realm, and therefore not within our responsibility or ability to handle them. Whether or not to document their behaviors publicly is up to each project. (and Stewards are not hired by WMF: All of us are just volunteers and does not represent WMF.) — regards, Revi 13:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Inactive bureaucrat in vi.wiki
vi:User:Vietbio is a bureaucrat in vi.wiki who is inactive for at least two years (their last edit was 2016, the last action as admin was 2013 and the last action with bureaucrat tool was 2008). vi.wiki is usually ignored in AAR process but it actually doesn't have any removal policy on bureaucrats but admins only (Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies). They were stripped off admin rights because of inactivity but the bureaucrat rights still exist. Per AAR, this user's bureaucrat privilege should be removed. Thanks. Tân (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, they have not been stripped off of their admin rights. Ruslik (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I am wrong about that. What is your suggestion? Making a discussion on vi.wiki to first remove his sysop privilege per their policy? Then making a request here?
- It's a problem that has been existed for a long time. Because there are only three bureaucrats on vi.wiki, the other two don't really want to make a motion to strip off their colleague. Moreover, most of the Wikipedians don't care enough about the bureaucrats' actions to have a serious discussion on how to deal with the inactive ones. There was an unsuccessful vote recently to try to revoke them because it didn't have enough interested participants although the consensus was reached (vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết bất tín nhiệm hành chính viên). They also never respond to resignation request (because of his inactivity). Tân (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- If the policy is clear about removing an admin's rights after 1y of inactivity, you can simply file a request at SRP. Local bureaucrats on viwiki do not have the power to "strip off" any admin rights, anyway (as it can be seen on vi:Special:UserGroupRights#bureaucrat). If the policy is not clear on this, then there is also no reason to act. --Vogone (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is a policy on inactive admins, but not on inactive bureaucrats. My question is would the AAR apply to bureaucrat on vi.wiki if there is no policy on this? Tân (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Is there any policy in viwiki that requires bureaucrats to be also administrators? Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is a policy on inactive admins, but not on inactive bureaucrats. My question is would the AAR apply to bureaucrat on vi.wiki if there is no policy on this? Tân (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- If the policy is clear about removing an admin's rights after 1y of inactivity, you can simply file a request at SRP. Local bureaucrats on viwiki do not have the power to "strip off" any admin rights, anyway (as it can be seen on vi:Special:UserGroupRights#bureaucrat). If the policy is not clear on this, then there is also no reason to act. --Vogone (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Upload local files in pam.wiki
According Local uploads policy, it is necesary having at least two active sysops for a wiki to have local file upload enabled, but pam.wiki have only one sysop. Is there a procedure to request that the local file upload be disabled in that project? --Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 18:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is just a draft, not real policy. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Is pamwiki building an Exemption Doctrine Policy? If not than only free use files are allowed and should just be put on commons. — xaosflux Talk 16:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)