Jump to content

Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2022-03

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Looking for help with page Stewards

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

In section "Communication" there is following sentence: "IRC: #wikimedia-stewards – Add @steward before your request to ping current stewards". What does "to ping current stewards" mean? All current stewards are (somehow) pinged or only those stewards who are currently connected to the IRC channel? --jdx Re: 13:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jdx: The latter — it'll ping all stewards who are in the IRC channel 🙂 ~TNT (talk • she/her) 13:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I think that the sentence should be updated (preferably by a native speaker) – I suspect that even most of native speakers does not understand it correctly. --jdx Re: 13:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this any better? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 13:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Sure, thanks. --jdx Re: 13:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: jdx Re: 13:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Tulsibot

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am not using this bot account anymore and don't wish to use it in future. For security reasons, please lock it and remove associated bot right. Just to note, this is one & only account of mine apart from main account. Thank you. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Tulsi Bhagat. As you know, we don't usually lock accounts on request. I am not opposed to it but it is unlikely to happen. As for the bot flag, it currently only has flags on ne.wikipedia. @Biplab Anand is a local bureaucrat there and can remove the flag locally without the need of steward intervention :) Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Thank you for the response. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete empty global accounts

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to have this handled by sysadmins as it has caused problems in the past e.g. phab:T147915 & phab:T160296. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Thank you. @Martin Urbanec: @Majavah: @Legoktm: can you see these accounts? Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
These accounts are empty too
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/������������������������������|������������������������������]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�¦|�¦]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Zipfiddle|�Zipfiddle]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Vizpiddle|�Vizpiddle]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Slicklick|�Slicklick]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Nuckydoo|�Nuckydoo]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Major A|�Major A]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Kibo|�Kibo]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Grunger|�Grunger]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�DougHoales|�DougHoales]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Bung|�Bung]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Bugblatter|�Bugblatter]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�Aguilator|�Aguilator]]
  • [[Special:CentralAuth/�|�]]
  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]

AlPaD (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

And the benefit of deleting these is what exactly..? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 10:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed on the Special:Log/globalauth that some empty global accounts have been deleted and some accounts have names that a user may want like Смирнов and can't because there is this blank account. AlPaD (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm also against deleting the accounts if the only reason is one is a desired username. If there is a valid technical reason to prevent system failure/account collision/etc, we can take another look. But for now, existence is not sufficient reason, in my opinion, for deleting these. Operator873 connect 18:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Operator873: Hello! That's why I pinged the sysadmins. To see if it is done without a technical problems. AlPaD (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I can see a benefit in deleting these global accounts if they're just ghost accounts without any local accounts attached and are invalid usernames, but like I said, I think this should be handled by developers to decide which is the best course of action and if this is safe to do. Options are: (1) leave them as is, (2) rename them to Invalid username~$number or (3) outright delete the global account. Maybe the script to check for invalid usernames and empty global accounts should be run again and have a complete list of those, and decide about them all. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, yes sysadmins is better to see it and do who of the 3 is better. AlPaD (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay so let's close this as Deferred Deferred to system administrators on Phabricator. I've updated a Task: phab:T147915#7808088. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Global deleted image review (2)

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

When I wandering around translatable pages on Meta-Wiki today, I happened to found a proposed (but not implemented) global user group, called "Global deleted image review" on page Global groups. According to a relevant RfC closed 7 years ago, there seems to be a consensus of "creating the group, however not automatically granting it". The description Global deleted image review said "this proposal is currently awaiting implementation", I wonder what is the current status of this proposal, or should we mark it as rejected. Thanks a lot. Stang 19:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's rejected. Maybe stalled. If someone wants to move it forward, even after 7 years, I don't see why not. The next steps (in no particular order) would be: 1) Someone needs to lay out a global request-for-permission process for the user group. This is a community matter. 2) Someone needs to implement the global permission as part of MediaWiki or an extension, including a mechanism of local opt-out. This is a software development matter. Personally, I commented on why the user group would be useful in 2014, and I still stand by my comment. One thing I didn't think about is how to ensure transparency and make inactivity visible. For that, we might want to record read/view actions performed using this user rights, which might be something not straightforward to implement in MediaWiki. whym (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment Comment It would seem that there would need to be a phabricator ticket and involvement prior to any implementation. Maybe follow up there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to fill a ticket, as the management of global groups could be done by stewards (no need to submit patches). Opt-out could be easily done just like global sysop. Some bad thing is personally I thought "log view deleted images action" is not that easy to be implemented. Something I am not pretty sure: is a new RfC needed for this changes (as the previous one is pretty old and may not reflect community's thought at present). Stang 21:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Global deleted image review already exists, and is technically possible since 2014. See gerrit:162546 & phab:T16801. The viewdeletedfile permission also exists in the GlobalGroupPermissions special page. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Section moved to SN (from Pub) as the creation of this group require steward's assistance. If there is anything else need to be resolved, feel free to ask. Stang 04:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we need a fresh RfC. 7 years is enough time for the community to have changed (or not) their mind about this. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. This is something we could do, but I'd want to see that consensus still exists to implement as proposed. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reminding. A RfC is created and a neutrally-worded notice has been posted at VP/P on commonswiki. Stang 23:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Unblock Hurricane Electric IPv6

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I want to contest that continued block of the whole range of Hurricane Electric's IPv6 range. Has there anything been happening that this range had to be blocked? Can't you block it on a firewall basis so that browsers can at least do IPv4 fallback? --Treysis (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Treysis Yes, the HE 6to4 tunnels and HE's colocation services have been abused for vandalism, spam, and other abuse. Because these services make it easier to evade blocks that would otherwise prevent that abuse, they have been blocked in accordance with NOP. Unfortunately, we also can't easily carve single IPs or ranges out of blocks. You may request Global IP block exemption, but it won't affect local blocks on other wikis like the English Wikipedia. Blocking at the firewall would require an action by the Wikimedia Foundation, and would not be done because it would prevent some users from reading the projects. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
But can't we have an exception for already registered users? This was granted to me in the past. However, now I am totally unable to edit, because I cannot access the site over IPv4 because my browser decides to use IPv6 over IPv4, but I also cannot disable IPv6. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Treysis (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@Treysis: Again, you can request Global IP block exemption, so you can edit. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards%27_noticeboard/Archives/2022-03&oldid=23288761"