Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2023-01

Requests for comment/Clarification to Global rename policy

I have opened the above RFC. —MdsShakil (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Limited local bureaucrat just for emergency deadminship

To effectively solve the problems involving Chinese Wikisource, may I request allowing any limited bureaucrat just for emergency deadminship per local guideline, please? If yes, I know whom to nominate as a candidate, so we will mostly be much happier once solving the issues. I would like to also ask any disinterested stewards about Stewards/Elections_2023#Election_Committee exceeding the tasks [1] [2] [3] [4] as Stewards/Confirm/2023 will be soon.--Jusjih (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking in the latter part of your above comment (to me, it seems like a thinly veiled threat against the election committee stewards who took actions against your inappropriate questions). Is my assessment correct, and if so do you believe that to be appropriate behaviour for a Meta-Wiki administrator? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 23:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeing Bureaucrat#Removing_access that bugzilla is now phabricator, I am withdrawing this topic for now.--Jusjih (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jusjih: I expect a reply to the question I asked you above. This section is not resolved — your conduct has been subpar to say the least. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 04:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is Jusjih still an admin on this wiki? There have been problems going back years [5][6] Requests for comment/De-adminship for Jusjih in certain projects. --Rschen7754 06:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought they were still a steward, lol. As to why no removal, hasn't been inactive 8) – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Your desire for a reply has nothing to do with any limited local bureaucrat just for emergency deadminship, i.e., off-topic. See also w:Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds#How this essay works with requests for adminship. I disagree that my conduct has been subpar. What I have said would have nothing to do with the adminship, just like your talks involving the election committee and being a steward, rather than adminship. Acknowledge that I avoided edit war. Stewards/Elections 2023#Election Committee means responsibility, not to excessively suppress the community asking reasonable questions. If Stewards/Confirm is not a good system, or if certain questions for potentially new stewards are undesirable, find any reasonable ways to change, rather than arbitrarily acting on.--Jusjih (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Ajraddatz with a good post. May I remind all users, whether stewards, administrators, or others, to fairly and impartially judge any disputes? Otherwise, stay out of them or equally ask all involved parties to cool down, like "double or nothing". Thus I disagree how Rschen7754 would hound unfairly with an unactionable yet hateful RfC to retaliate an SRP filed by someone else. A local discussion is still on to depend on it just as the evidence.--Jusjih (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no consensus among the local community about creating such a post. I strongly condemn Jusjih for bypassing local procedures on this issue, especially that Chinese Wikisource have no local bureaucrat since about a decade ago, thus clear consensus should be needed for pushing any changes related to bureaucrats forward. And, I have some real concern about whether they are capable of governing a wiki and representing a community as an administrator well enough. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 10:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no bypassing local procedures, or s:zh:Wikisource:写字间#启用滥用过滤器自动封锁功能 could also have someone to condemn, but I see no one to condemn. Assume good faith and stop excessive double standard on whom to condemn. I am withdrawing this topic.--Jusjih (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind for almost all purposes if there is an admin that is running amok and needs to be stopped for an emergency, any other admin can apply a site block to them. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jusjih (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Global username policy

While the page says that this is a proposed policy, it appears that stewards are already following (examples: 1 2 3). I don't know whether the community have commented on this but this doesn't seem to be the case.

And while I'm here asking about whether this is actually a policy, I have to ask, what is actually the point of this? It adds unnecessary bureaucracy and w:WP:BITE to what was previously a very simple process – someone tells you that you have a bad username, and maybe blocks you for it, then you ask to change it, someone changes it and we move on. Now under this policy/proposed policy/whatever... if you have a username that states a political belief, you will be instantly globally locked losing all preferences and contributions you had made under the account. If you want to get your old account back, you'll have to email stewards at least a couple of times, one to appeal the lock and another to say which new username you prefer. If you are unable to access email then you have no way of getting your old account back and you have to start a new account because you didn't read the global username policy... that isn't linked anywhere at the moment. And I imagine stewards already have to deal with tons of emails about editors having to use proxies and other stuff. Why add this on?

I completely understand locking genuine abusive account names, but locking all the accounts that fall under this criteria seems wrong to me, and I would appreciate other people's input on this. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I've just copied the above from what I posted on Talk:Global username policy and added a few more examples following some discussion on #wikimedia-stewards^connect. --Ferien (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ferien, I'm happy to provide more context for this. The policy proposal created by ~riley in 2020 is not the impetus for locking accounts with abusive usernames. If there is a steward who has cited the proposal for an action, please let me know, because it would be incorrect. Stewards have been locking accounts with abusive usernames looooooong before that proposal, as with other forms of abuse. This isn't an addition, this has always been the case.

The three accounts you linked, however, imo did not need to be locked. The usernames were not abusive, and their issues could have been solved with renames, or by allowing local projects to determine if the usernames are appropriate. I'll raise it with the stewards who locked those accounts. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)