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.
Hi Stewards' recently I received AWB rights on English Wikipedia and I had installed JS wiki Browser on global.js . I can now use the script on all Wikimedia projects including one here at Meta. Since it is a tool that is used for making repetitive or continuous editing it can make huge edits. But I scare that it can also be used for vandalism on a very huge extend. This tool is used globally and if restrictions (as on enwp/Commons) than only specific people can use it orelse anyone can use it making as a free available mass vandalism tool. It has some check page that can only restrict its usage on that wiki. I request to find out a way that this tool and others similar (if any) has been made compulsorily asked local permission before usage on local project as a mass vandalism prevention step.
There are easier ways of vandalizing than using AWB, and I don't recall any AWB vandalism on small wikis during my tenure. I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: I completely agree that there are different ways too. But isn't mass vandalism possible by this tools? I had used it first on my local wiki almost 500 constructive edits but what about it if they were used for vandalism. In small wiki there are no frequently visiting administrators that can stop. Till the time they visit it would be a lot of disruptive edits. --Tiven2240 (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Mass vandalism can be reverted by stewards, global sysops, and global rollbackers nearly instantly using mass rollback scripts. We monitor small wiki recent changes using an IRC feed, and could respond very quickly. AWB does not pose a significant threat to small wikis. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Personally, as someone who has fixed URLs crosswiki, I see this as a feature not a bug. --Rschen7754 08:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: am not reporting any vandalism here am just asking to find out a preventative measure. Is there a need for the vandalism to happen for taking any steps?. Can't we have some preventive steps for the issue I mentioned above? --Tiven2240 (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, as Rschen and Ajraddatz said this a) has its benefits and b) there is no problem. Thus a preventive action would not be warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind the balancing of risk that would be needed as well with the work required to manage it; if you implement AWB controls on a wiki with little or no administrators, who is going to manage the legitimate access requests? I've personally fired up AWB to fix random templates, etc on small wikis that were causing Lint Errors - having to go through a registration process would have meant I would have just skipped it. — xaosfluxTalk 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be largely a solution in search of a problem.Whilst I appreciate OP's concern(s), I don't support any prohibition on AWB access on other-wikis.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
As a Commons admin I have had to undertake crosswiki updates due to files, so having to seek permission on 00s of wikis to be able to edit would be butt-ugly, especially where there are no admins. As such I support the commentary about AWB and maintenance of the status quo. If we had an issue at a small wiki then it is a quick and easy measure to individually implement a stop measure at that wiki. — billinghurstsDrewth 23:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)