Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2018-06

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 June 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Global bans

Closing in on 150,000 edits, I do not think that I have anything to be ashamed of.

I draw your attention to en:MediaWiki talk:Autoblock whitelist#Collateral damage. About 10 days ago, I, an experienced editor, was twice hit within two days with a global ban because some fool vandal was on my IP. I could not even edit my own Talk Page. It took me 9 hours and 5 (6?) emails to get those silly blocks lifted. I was fortunate enough to know some other experienced editors, and to be able to email them. One, an admin, did part of the job. Another, not an admin, pointed me at UTRS See en:User talk:Narky Blert#How about now?

I emailed User:Tegel, who issued the first block, on or about 20 May. I have still had no response.

I cannot email User:Vituzzu, who issued the second block. That editor's email is closed.

OK, so I, with considerable thought and effort, managed to get my bans lifted. What about those honest editors who may have been driven away for ever by such indiscriminate unappealable bans?

Imagine that you are an ordinary, decent, willing, inexperienced user who has just been landed with a global IP ban. Do you (1) jump through difficult-to-find hoops to get it lifted?, or (2) give up on Wikipedia for good? Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: terminology first, you were neither not locked nor banned, best guess is a temporary hard IP block.

There are plentiful avenues to address blocks, and the community would appreciate a cooperative approach to better solutions rather than just complaints. All volunteers here, all doing their best. They understand that you have been inconvenienced and it is unfortunate.

If we are facing xwiki abuse, then we manage it as best we can. There is no simple ability to understand all the consequences of all blocks, though all stewards will try their best. So please start again. Note that your link above is irrelevant to any circumstances that you relate. You may also be interested in IPBE if you are a crosswiki editor, or you can apply for that at enWP if you solely edit there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC) (observer only, not involved in the rigmarole)

Eh? terminology first? the message I got (in multiple languages) was:
Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.
with, as I have previously said, no means of appeal.
I managed, eventually, to find a way around the unjust blocks with which I had been landed. I am posting here because other less experienced editors may have been caught up in this nonsense and might not know how to do so. I suggest that you sort this problem out, for the good of the project.
"There are plentiful avenues to address blocks"
Name them then, for ordinary editors such as myself. They are not obvious. Especially if you cannot post {{unblock}} on your own Talk Page. Narky Blert (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note, after this we did change the default message on enwiki to have a link to the meta page (w:en:MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked-range) but for other projects, the message is not very clear about how someone may best deal with this. — xaosflux Talk 12:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    Blaming stewards is not reasonable for the existing Mediawiki design and implementation, they just work with the tools. the whole community has allowed this to evolve in this manner. It is not reasonable to expect stewards to do add that at every WMF wiki.

    Sounds like a general Wikimedia issue where the answer lies with a globally implemented Wikimedia-specific implementation of that message. Probably worth putting in a bug report against mw:Extension:GlobalBlocking to see if there is the ability to enable a WMF specific implementation of that message that can be managed through https://translatewiki.net as some sort of fallback message where a local custom is not implemented.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Обращение

Добрый день, уважаемые стюарды проектов Фонда! Заметил, что вы начала уведомлять администраторов и бюрократов русского Викицитатника о малой активности по глобальным правилам. Уведомляю вас, что сообществом был найден консенсус по локальным правилам: Неактивные Администраторы ВЦ, итог к сожалению подвести забыли, как и зафиксировать сам консенсус; однако, он есть. OlegCinema (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I don't speak Russian. I guess you are speaking of my AAR notification. You can update your wiki's inactivity admin policy status at Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies, and we will skip your wiki in the future, making you responsible for handling it. — regards, Revi 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much. We will discuss with the participants the final local rules of inactivity, and, if possible, will you help me to do all the necessary operations to fix the consensus? OlegCinema (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, just let us know when you're done discussing as a community. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

AAR interpretation question

Hello. I am in doubt with regards to Admin_activity_review/2017/Data#hrwiktionary_(not_done). AAR#Policy§4(2) mentions somewhat the user should reply to the notice. In this case, the user has not replied to the notice but has one vote to support the keeping of the permissions as can be seen at the local discussion. Am I right assuming that, in order for an user to keep their rights, such user must always reply to said message? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I would generally agree. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Restored from the archive. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "the user himself should reply to the notice" --Alaa :)..! 11:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. And personally I don't understand why Ex13 can keep the rights too... after 1 edit and 2 log actions in 2/3 years. But meh. Trijnsteltalk 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
When I did AAR as a steward, I generally left the rights, but it is a matter of steward discretion. That being said, I think AAR is too loose in some cases and I would support a stricter standard. --Rschen7754 02:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I thnk we can clarify on AAR that we require the user to reply or rights will be lost. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is also how I understand the policy. --MF-W 17:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure about this. Failure to receive a suitable reply results in "they will evaluate the responses and decide whether to refer the management decisions back to the local communities for comment and review, or to remove the advanced administrative rights from the inactive user" - hence steward discretion. --Rschen7754 00:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)