Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
Stewards
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
Requests
For stewards
Noticeboards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Russian spam on the Konkani Wikipedia[edit]

I am a temporary administrator on the Konkani Wikipedia. I have noticed a phenomenon where in from time to time there are spam topics created on talk pages in Russian (on the Konkani Wikipedia, the talk pages are in Structured Discussions - formerly Flow - format by default). Whenever I come across these topics, I delete them immediately. Is it possible that even though we are deleting the topics, the spammers are somehow still able to take advantage of Standard Discussion topics for their communication? Do we need to take some further steps in this matter? For example, I noticed that even after we delete the topic, the title of the topic is still visible in the deletion summary. Perhaps we need to stop displaying the title of a deleted topic?

Following are some examples of the spam topics:

The Discoverer (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Discoverer: Best you can do locally is write a spam filter or two to block it. Hard to easily stop such additions globally without severe consequences.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Billinghurst:, I'll do that. Do you have any pointers on what criteria for filtering would be suitable in this case? The Discoverer (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@The Discoverer: Flow namespace isn't my speciality for filters. Systemwise, I would suggest starting with
  • Filter group: Flow;
  • user_age==0
  • page_id==0
Looking at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format gives some Board type options, or use the namespace specifically. Then you will need to look at what is common among the words, or simply Cyrillic characters. Hard to give that advice. You will need to work out whether you think that it is real people, who will ignore warnings, or bots, who tend to not edit through warnings. Suggest put it into test first to see the value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Billinghurst:, I'll work on this. The Discoverer (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Billinghurst, I have studied the instances of spam, but since I'm not well-versed with writing abuse filters, please could you help by writing a local filter with the following conditions?
  • Filter group: Flow
  • user_age==0 (Unregistered editors)
  • board_namespace==3 (User talk pages)
  • It should check that at least 40% of the text should be Cyrillic characters
It appears that we are dealing with real people and not bots, therefore, warnings will not be sufficient.
I have also noticed that at least a couple of the IP addresses have been reported as forum spammers, so perhaps later on, if necessary, we can create a separate filter using sfs_blocked that checks whether the IP address is blocked using the stopforumspam.com list and more stringent criteria regarding the contents.
Thanks for your help, The Discoverer (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The Discoverer, English Wikipedia, Meta, and Commons all rejected flow and demanded it be uninstalled. This led to Flow being uninstalled from all wikis were it was not yet active. It also resulted in a MW:Talk pages consultation 2019, for the Community and Foundation to agree on plan for the future. The result was to terminate any new Flow deployments, and initiate a project to upgrade existing Talk pages instead. Flow is will still be "maintained" for now, but eventually Flow is will have to be phased out completely. You might want to open a discussion on Konkani Wikipedia to see if the community wants to simply eliminate the Flow boards now. That would of course solve any Flow-spam, chuckle. Alsee (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Stop spreading FUD about Flow, VE etc... --Wargo (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Community consultation on partial bans[edit]

In about ~40 hours, the ongoing WMF consultation on Partial Bans will be closed. Some steward might choose to step up to close the proceedings and draft a summary. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

previous discussion. I will bug stewards-l, but I can't guarantee if anyone will volunteer. — regards, Revi 05:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The consultation is now closed. There's a note from the WMF saying, "If the community has not found a Steward to close the consultation by [November 12], we will close it." --Yair rand (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest special attention to be paid to any divergence between the responses to the RFC and the assumptions implied by whomever drafted the questions. A consensus is a summary of the responses, regardless of any leading questions or drafting issues. In particular I believe quite a few respondents were less concerned with the 'temporary' or 'partial' issue than the issue of T&S overstepping the bounds cases they are supposed to handle. Alsee (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Sitrep: nobody has volunteered so far. (And no I am not going to do it.) — regards, Revi 02:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
An outside comment, but it might be better to get a panel of three stewards to close so it doesn't all fall on one steward. --Rschen7754 06:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems that it's virtually impossible to find one steward willing to see this, finding 3 would be just impossible. — regards, Revi 18:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I posted Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Summarize community consultation on office actions before I saw this section, but my question is, why does it have to be closed by a steward? Are there any reasons that an uninvolved Meta admin or 'crat would not be sufficient? There is no requirement in policy I can find stating that only stewards can close community consultations. Imposing such a requirement just makes it more likely that the Foundation would take it upon themselves to do it, and I have no confidence that they will not continue their attempt to spin and manipulate the discussion.

If any steward agrees that one or more uninvolved meta admins would be sufficient to summarize the discussion, would you please move my request from SRM to RFH? EllenCT (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We didn't ask to be the closer, and (seems) nobody cares about this. You should ask TnS if they'd accept adminz. (For the record, I neither agree nor disagree with you, I just don't care.) — regards, Revi 18:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't blame you for not wanting to go near it, as I said in my question about whether there would be objections to an uninvolved admin closing summary. EllenCT (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have asked for at least one admin or 'crat to summarize, without regard to the WMF's opinion on the question. EllenCT (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • The deadline is today. I'd recommend any individual steward go ahead and close it. --Yair rand (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I asked for an extension to try to find anyone to close it. T&S said until next week (2019-11-18) on Thursday, 14th Nov. They themselves recommend removing Partial and Temporary bans. I can also understand no one really wanting to go near that, and I feel I am not qualified to close the consultation myself either given that I have participated. I also feel this is not a single person job considering it is complex. Notwithstanding my personal opinion is that the majority of the participants in the consultation do not agree with partial and/or temporary office actions and so I also recommend its removal. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Decent articles; cryptic messages[edit]

I have no clue what to make of this anonymous user whatsoever. I know I probably shouldn't block them, but their edit summaries are really starting to freak me out. All this user does is post pretty decent articles on sco.wiki that seem to be translations of en.wiki articles to some extent, but instead of leaving the edit summary blank... idk how to explain it. They post an edit summary which is always an all-caps section that straight up doesn't exist within the article. Examples include: #NEWS LIGHT, #DAYLIGHT DEVOTION, or recently it's been #MOMENTS WITH GOD. It almost never has anything to do with whatever content is written (which btw is by all standards stellar in comparison to the usual unsourced stubs I have to sift through).

Then there was this edit, "→‎500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR (DATABASE ERROR): ERROR ESTABLISHING A DATABASE CONNECTION" and now I'm totally confused.

Can a steward (or anyone for that matter) please tell me if this is something that other small wikis have experienced? Please ping responses. –MJLTalk 07:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Are those translations really good? Ruslik (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Surprisingly, yeah.
Also, another one just got released today as well: Ras Dashen with the message "PRAYER POWER" –MJLTalk 18:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Perhaps the user is well intentioned but is using edit summaries like car bumper stickers. I suggest that you post a note on the user's talk page to thank them for their edits and to ask them to write edit summaries that are actually edit summaries instead of personal musings. ↠Pine () 05:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Pine: Should I wait until they post another article since it's a dynamic IP address from the looks of it? –MJLTalk 05:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: I think that it's OK for you to use your discretion. The user doesn't appear to be doing anything malicious in the edit summaries. If they start to post strange text in the content of their translations, or if their edit summaries start to become promotional, then there would be a bigger problem. I think that it's good for you to watch them and to ask them to use more informative edit summaries, but I don't think that worry is necessary at the moment. Something else that should be done, if this user isn't doing it, is to provide appropriate credit to the authors of the articles which they are using as sources for their translations. Failing to provide appropriate credit is a reason for blocking, but because they seem to be posting good translations you can say that nicely instead of applying a block. If they continue to use inappropriate edit summaries and not to provide appropriate credit then I think that you should block them with the message that their content is good but they need to fix those two issues before being allowed to continue with their otherwise good work. ↠Pine () 06:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Pine: Okay, I will try to follow this advice! I'm a little gun-shy about blocking in general, and I only have 13 blocks to my name at the moment. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that for this user, and I will probably do my best just to avoid that situation as possible (with sufficient warnings and the like). Their content is really solid, and I wouldn't want to lose them as an editor. I'll just have to see what happens then and react appropriately in kind. –MJLTalk 06:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Об администраторах Википедии tg.wikipedia.org[edit]

Обращаюсь к Вам по поводу бездействия некоторых администраторов таджикской википедии adminstats/tg.wikipedia.org. Администраторы Darafsh, Omid_Jeyhani, Ibrahim не проявляют желания выполнять обязанности администраторов.

* Поставить вопрос о голосовании в сообществе я не могу. Причина отсутствие активных участников в Википедии tg.wikipedia.org. Active users list
* Просьба к Вам рассмотреть обсуждаемую проблему. --Шухрат Саъдиев (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Бездействия по поводу чего? Если администратор не проявляет никакой активности на протяжении двух лет, то с него флаг снимается по правилам Фонда (предварительно участника надо уведомить о необходимости повышения активности). Если имеются какие-то нарушения, то расскажите об этом, также со ссылками на факты.— Soul Train (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate linking in edit summaries[edit]

A user on the Outreach wiki included a Twitter link in an edit summary but created no content in their edit other than creating a user page. This is the first time that I can recall seeing this tactic. My guess is that the link was posted in the edit summary for the purpose of trying to boost search rankings. I'm sharing this information here to notify other admins and stewards to be watchful for this type of junk in edit summaries. ↠Pine () 05:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think edit summaries are taken into consideration when it comes to SEO (especially Google)? Correct me if I am wrong. — regards, Revi 01:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Editors blocked for participating in hrwiki RFC[edit]

See my concerns outlined at [11]. If this is true, this edges into emergency desysop territory. --Rschen7754 22:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Left a comment on the RFC. You might want to contact them via talk page? — regards, Revi 01:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: Happy to do it, but I think it would carry more weight if it came from a steward. --Rschen7754 18:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)