Stewards' noticeboard

←Stewards

Stewards' noticeboard

Archives→

Welcome to the stewards ' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.

• This is not the place for stewards requests. To make a new request, see steward requests and requests and proposals .
• For illustration of steward policies and use, see the steward handbook .
• See also: Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard.
• This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.

Stewards

• About stewards
• Elections
• History

Requests

• CheckUser information
• Global blocks & locks
• Global rights
• Local bot rights
• Local rights
• Account renaming
• Miscellaneous requests
• URL blacklisting
• Title/username blacklisting

For stewards

• Help
• Policies
• Bugs
• Mailing list
• #wikimedia-stewards^connect

Noticeboards

• Access policy noticeboard
• Stewards' noticeboard

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Chinese Wikipedia SPI clerk nomination

Dear Stewards,

It has been two years since the SPI noticeboard opened on Chinese Wikipedia. I am thrilled to present you with one proposed new SPI clerk, 94rain (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth), to the team. They have received multiple endorsements from community members, SPI clerks and sysops.

Just like last time, the clerk nomination is to be made public here at the Stewards' noticeboard for seven days before taking the position, in case any stewards would have any opinions on the credibility of the above users. They will take their position as SPI clerk from March 6, 2024 if no opposing opinions arise.

If you have any comments about the listed nominees, please do not hesitate to leave your comment below. cc Stewards who actively helped with zhwiki CheckUser requests: @Sotiale, -revi, علاء, AmandaNP and Martin Urbanec.

Best regards, LuciferianThomas 14:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Like it or not, as one of the most involved stewards there, I support the nominated candidate. --Sotiale (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No opposition from me! Superpes15 (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@LuciferianThomas: FYI: -revi is no longer a steward so there are no need to ping him. GZWDer (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the notice. LuciferianThomas 05:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Since there are no oppositions, 94rain is now an SPI clerk on zhwiki. LuciferianThomas 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Problem cross-project user with fraudulent userpage

This userpage (created at Wikimedia 21 November 2023) copies affiliations etc. from User:Aimeabibis, including a claim to be the treasurer of LesSansPages. (Here for example you can see clear evidence that Aimeabibis is an active member of said group; कटासमुला is not even on their list of members.)

The user in question is recently (Feb. 29) blocked at Commons for creating bad categories there and participating in a promotional hoax that Abdel Nasser, head of AlHakawi News and AlAgha Group, won "the" Academy Award in 2023. NOTHERE and etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Global ban discussion reformation

Hello, currently some global ban discussions have become messy quarrels among supporters and opposers.
E.g. Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2) and Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2).
This system may need a little reformation, for example, making the discussion tidier by letting users make their comments just on their own paragraphs, like cases in English Wikipedia Arbcoms, which may also made users cooler without directly commenting each other.
I don't know where to put up a discussion for such a proposal, and is it legitimate? Lemonaka (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The global ban system is not great. Stewards tend to not want to wade into these discussions (there is very little upside, as any action is almost certain to upset a group of people, and stewards typically are more behind-the-scenes types than dispute resolutioners). I hope that once the U4C is in place, more of these discussions will move out of the public pillory space and into the private committee space, where they are honestly better suited anyway. In the meantime, it would be nice to have more steward clerking and timely closing of these discussions - I can't personally on the Slowking4 one as I have commented / have opinions on the subject. I'll see what I can do about some of the other open ones. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I believed Global ban consensus got by community, enforced by WMF Office or U4C (likely a global arbcom) is better than nowadays messy battlefields Lemonaka (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The global ban system is indeed not great, but is at least there is a discussion, and is better than SRG that usually has virtually no discussion (what I mean: for non-VOA unless there are ongoing abuse from the main account - in that case we soon can have short-time global blocks, issues and abuses should either be handled locally or by formal process like global ban or in the future U4C, and stewards should not break community's self-governance. In particular, being blocked in most or all wikis should not be a reason of global locks, since in most cases the abuse is sufficiently handled by community.) The Matlin case is very similar to Slowking4 case, which is a user blocked in multiple wikis but not home wiki. So ideally, we need a formal discussion before locking the main account. GZWDer (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I kinda prefer it old fashioned. The better way would to have clerks format it, keeping the supports/oppose clean and moving replies to comment section or different section underneath. As long as people keep it civilized, I see no reason to prevent a good arguments. Both of those cases are not black and white, hence they had to be discussed twice. I think this practice is much better and more acceptable for wider community than to have a blind vote or having a body decide where the line that separates the conduct with misconduct exists. Also, I don't think global community bans should be enforced by WMF as mentioned above. Mostly because community is equipped with tools to enforce that, and also because I think there should be clear distinction between WMF ban and community ban. BRP ^ever 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)