Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2019-03
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in March 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
GS/R afterwards
The following request is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
May I please know why exactly this has been decided (I don't even know who decided such, haven't seen any discussions) that such processes for individuals need to be repeated? Is it just bureaucracy for its own sake?
I think I have proved that I can use both efficiently, recently too, so why do I need to go without them for weeks if I need to go through elections again? I have never had them removed due to either abuse or inactivity, so I think they should be separate from any other flag (and they were only removed because that flag superseded them, made them redundant, not for any other reason).
Please return the flags I had before as otherwise vandals and spammers have an advantage and anyone can see that I've been using the permissions they contain today, yesterday, and otherwise recently... unless there is something better than 'undo' (does TW work?) I cannot use it, as it's abysmally inefficient. -- Lofty abyss 01:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unless there is objection, I'm willing to return GR and GS to this user. They already had these permissions prior to stewardship (see past successful requests for GR and GS, respectively) and the removal of the steward flag did not involve loss of trust on the user's ability to use global rollback and sysop AFAIK. I see no need, therefore, to force them to go through new discussions to regain these rights. Defender (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no set policy on this. I would caution Lofty abyss, however, that GS has a pretty strict activity policy and no mandatory warnings before removal. --Rschen7754 03:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support the idea to grant GS+GR to Menti/Lofty abyss, his recent anti spambot activity have been truly helpful.--AldNonymousBicara? 03:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I’m against. I’ll explain later today/this week. Trijnsteltalk 07:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- (after ec) My main reasons: Mentifisto was indeed a GS before they were promoted as steward, but they are now a rather controversial candidate. Even though they decided to remove the steward rights themselves (which I definitely would have prevented, if I could), they did not resign but were removed. Therefore I'm against them getting GR and GS rights without election. Let them stand for election again, but do not give it straight away. Trijnsteltalk 08:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- What is controversial about removing oneself? I've only done it for the local flag. And I've done it for purely poetic reasons... are there policies against poetry now?
- (after ec) My main reasons: Mentifisto was indeed a GS before they were promoted as steward, but they are now a rather controversial candidate. Even though they decided to remove the steward rights themselves (which I definitely would have prevented, if I could), they did not resign but were removed. Therefore I'm against them getting GR and GS rights without election. Let them stand for election again, but do not give it straight away. Trijnsteltalk 08:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- You, on the other hand, kicked me from ##stew with the sole reason of "bye", which I am currently disputing with other ops. Frankly, I think what you did is far worse than quoting poetry in the removal of a flag that was going to be removed anyway. I didn't even say a single word for over twelve hours... then you suddenly join in and apparently it's just "bye".
- And I've tried being accommodating. I have literally 'begged' you to communicate any difficulties... what else could I do? I'm not the one refusing to talk, you are. Is communication inherently 'evil' or something in your mind? And I ask you, once again, I offer an olive branch, to at least get discourse going, so we iron out any difficulties.
- I honestly, seriously do not know what I did wrong to you... and you refuse to tell me, so I really do not know what I can do from this point with these conditions, but I'll let others be the judge of this 'weird' incident. -- Lofty abyss 20:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest, it doesn't really look as if you urgently need the global sysop toolset, and two weeks wait on SRGP would allow for community input. If you would not have been a steward, you would have lost Global Sysop access already in May 2014, based on the GS activity criterion, according to a timeline of your GS actions since (based on CrossActivity and leaving out logs on meta, which is not a gs wiki):
| log actions since November 2013 |
|---|
|
- Savhñ 08:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can someone perhaps create a script to indicate non-gs wikis from gs ones? It's difficult to tell one from the other, wouldn't you agree? At any rate, and even if I haven't deleted many recently, I'm sure I've tagged many others in wikis that I did notice had active sysops, so please do not ignore those simply because they're not actual deletions. (As tagging is still something a GS does on active wikis, yes?) -- Lofty abyss 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Someone already created one. You're welcome. – KPFC 💬 20:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's the one I've had installed for some time... well, then, I'm not sure why I've deleted and acted upon other matters in active wikis in years past, but honestly it's been so long ago I forgot specifically why, but with regards to those the more recent Oct 18 I can only apologize for not noticing, but I'm sure I also tagged many others due to active wikis recently too. -- Lofty abyss 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Someone already created one. You're welcome. – KPFC 💬 20:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can someone perhaps create a script to indicate non-gs wikis from gs ones? It's difficult to tell one from the other, wouldn't you agree? At any rate, and even if I haven't deleted many recently, I'm sure I've tagged many others in wikis that I did notice had active sysops, so please do not ignore those simply because they're not actual deletions. (As tagging is still something a GS does on active wikis, yes?) -- Lofty abyss 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I echo Trijnstel concerns. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you agree even with their arbitrary kicking with only "bye" as a rationale? -- Lofty abyss 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Regrettably, the lack of consensus here seems that a SRGP application will be warranted. --Cohaf (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment Was the removal of those rights appropriate in the first place? Just because someone became a steward and the GR/GS have no permissions impact, was it appropriate to remove them for a tidiness reason? It has always intrigued me on the necessity to remove the subsidiary rights. I would think that the situation here is whether the person has met the criteria to retain GS based on their activities over the requisite period or whether the stewardry discussions demonstrate a reason for GS removal. I see no case made for removal of GS rights through loss of trust, so they should be returned at the conclusion of the steward rights. If they subsequently lost through inactivity, so be it. GR has no automatic removal process where trust is maintained. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly second to stop such useless pruning of redundant flags. This is an issue also for normal sysops who after retirement even lack autopatrol on many projects. --Krd 10:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would be against automatic reinstatement of these tools. It should be decided by the community given the controversy surrounding your failed confirmation. Nihlus 11:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- What's 'controversial' about inactivity? If anything, you decided to induce such by calling me a "liar" despite providing no proof of such. -- Lofty abyss 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- A fairly recent "proof of such" might be that you defend your self-removal being "only [...] for the local flag" in your reply to Trijnstel, just after indicating on IRC that this was caused by you removing your rights in a wrong order, even with a subsequent request to Matiia to complete this action. --Vogone (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yet again, what *practical* difference does self-removal make? Do you have anything against poetry in rationales? (Oh, sorry, can't help it, I know in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... well, you know, I suppose humour isn't necessarily appropriate here? But, what is? No humour, no poetry)... no, ultimately, it makes no difference, unless there was an RfC where flags were decided to be absolutely removed by some central committee... even Beeblebrox (not the enwp one) had doubts due to his double-header nature... oh, I apologize for the humour once again, but I do appreciate your poetry... (Please allow me that reference, why otherwise choose such a name? O.o) -- Lofty abyss 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you have no idea about why self-removal might be controversial, why did you ask an ElectCom member whether it would be okay to remove your rights yourself? And why did you proceed when you were given the reply, based on ElectCom's consensus, that you should not do so? --MF-W 23:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yet again, what *practical* difference does self-removal make? Do you have anything against poetry in rationales? (Oh, sorry, can't help it, I know in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... well, you know, I suppose humour isn't necessarily appropriate here? But, what is? No humour, no poetry)... no, ultimately, it makes no difference, unless there was an RfC where flags were decided to be absolutely removed by some central committee... even Beeblebrox (not the enwp one) had doubts due to his double-header nature... oh, I apologize for the humour once again, but I do appreciate your poetry... (Please allow me that reference, why otherwise choose such a name? O.o) -- Lofty abyss 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Let's see... you bludgeoned your confirmation to death, you ignored the points many people were making about how it was not just inactivity, you gamed the system for years and showed no demonstrable need for the bits, and even at the end you continued the same pattern of behaviors as if you learned nothing from it. You lied to the community because you said in previous confirmations that you would be active and that your inactivity for the year was an outlier. This happened multiple times. How is that not proof to you? This is just a repeat of you continuing to feign ignorance in order to absolve yourself of any wrongdoing. I strongly oppose any reinstatement of any right in any capacity for this continued disruptive behavior. Nihlus 20:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- 'Bludgeon' does not simply mean 'to reply to'... its actual definition is more of a physical blow... are you seriously equating violence to replies on wikis?
- And... how did I game the system? Surely, if I 'gamed' it I wouldn't have 'lost' the 'game'? Let's get actual stats here, as this shouldn't be a semantic game... I did 5000 actions in a month, most other stewards that have had "super strong support" did that much in a year... so unless no one cares about stemming the tide of spambots... by all means, 5000 actions can be shared by all others now, but those are the stats.
- I didn't lie simply because of those 5000 actions. Can you disprove I did as much? If I 'lied' with as many actions then have others lied with as many throughout the year if they dared to say they were active? (And I didn't even assert my activity, as I said, I merely thought that... relatively... I was active... but after a month I can't even say that I was merely relatively active, as I was literally more active than most have been in a year, so unless you can show, through actual numbers, that I haven't done as much as others, you simply cannot claim I was disingenuous.) -- Lofty abyss 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- w:WP:BLUDGEON. A very popular essay from a project where you are an administrator and oversighter. And, honestly, I have no intention of replying to you further as you are demonstrating the point I am trying to make. Nihlus 00:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- A fairly recent "proof of such" might be that you defend your self-removal being "only [...] for the local flag" in your reply to Trijnstel, just after indicating on IRC that this was caused by you removing your rights in a wrong order, even with a subsequent request to Matiia to complete this action. --Vogone (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- What's 'controversial' about inactivity? If anything, you decided to induce such by calling me a "liar" despite providing no proof of such. -- Lofty abyss 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I've always thought that when a user is elected as a steward, their membership on global groups superseded by stewardship, such as GR and GS, is temporarily suspended. In other words, during their term as steward, they are no longer a member of these groups, thus are not required to comply with their membership requirements. Unless a breach of trust or other severe issue occurs, they should be able to rejoin their previous global groups without the need of additional requests. A special case is Axpde, who insisted to retain membership on the GS group during their term as steward and was, then, subjected to the GS inactivity policy, having lost the GS flag at the time, as can be seen on these logs.
Concerning global rollback rights, even if the pertinent policy is applied, I see no grounds to prevent reinstatement. As said above, the removal of the steward permission did not involve loss of trust.Having said all that, this is just my opinion on the matter and I won't, of course, perform any right changes without a favourable consensus here. Defender (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)- I would rather disagree with the assessment that this removal "did not involve loss of trust", as it already becomes evident from the repeated use of the word "trust" in unfavourable context in confirmation statements. --Vogone (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, I've only used it to indicate that it doesn't seem there was a lack of such, as have others... if there was such a breach please provide evidence. -- Lofty abyss 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was refering to trust in the context of suitability to use GR/GS, not trust to continue as a steward. Nonetheless, given the course of this discussion, I've retracted part of what I said and will remain
Neutral from now on. Defender (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- But this isn't about anything to do with that flag, no, merely about the ones in the topic. I wasn't infering anything on your part. -- Lofty abyss 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was refering to trust in the context of suitability to use GR/GS, not trust to continue as a steward. Nonetheless, given the course of this discussion, I've retracted part of what I said and will remain
- No, I've only used it to indicate that it doesn't seem there was a lack of such, as have others... if there was such a breach please provide evidence. -- Lofty abyss 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would rather disagree with the assessment that this removal "did not involve loss of trust", as it already becomes evident from the repeated use of the word "trust" in unfavourable context in confirmation statements. --Vogone (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have no objections to returning GR/GS to stewards who resign without any substantive concerns. However, in cases like this where there are concerns, I think a new discussion should be required before granting GR/GS. I would also support a local block if Lofty continues to bludgeon discussions, as he is now doing here as well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bludgeon...? Wow... this is something. So, okay, 'bludgeon' was already mentioned on the reconfirmation, and it translated to... replying? So, should we have discussions about issues and people but only certain people can reply and not others, but more crucially, not the ones who are the point of discussion? Aj, I honestly do not understand you... you began by AGF and thinking that people shouldn't just be tossed away because of inactivity... but now you support blocking me for simply replying to a topic I created about something that, inevitably and not because I wanted to (would have honestly preferred to do it off-wiki, but people, which I'm assuming you were one of, refused)... for merely replying? Okay, let's imagine I didn't reply at all just now... what difference would that have made? Would wikis be so much better if no one ever replied and people merely stated something without any opposition? Do you essentially support blocking anyone who ever replied to any thread? Where does this logic lead to? Wikis are supposed to be free, and open! 'Bludgeon' does not simply mean 'to reply to'... its actual definition is more of a physical blow... are you seriously equating violence to replies on wikis? -- Lofty abyss 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are you trolling us now? --Rschen7754 01:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I will second the move to a block if Lofty abyss refuses to end his disruption. Nihlus 00:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bludgeon...? Wow... this is something. So, okay, 'bludgeon' was already mentioned on the reconfirmation, and it translated to... replying? So, should we have discussions about issues and people but only certain people can reply and not others, but more crucially, not the ones who are the point of discussion? Aj, I honestly do not understand you... you began by AGF and thinking that people shouldn't just be tossed away because of inactivity... but now you support blocking me for simply replying to a topic I created about something that, inevitably and not because I wanted to (would have honestly preferred to do it off-wiki, but people, which I'm assuming you were one of, refused)... for merely replying? Okay, let's imagine I didn't reply at all just now... what difference would that have made? Would wikis be so much better if no one ever replied and people merely stated something without any opposition? Do you essentially support blocking anyone who ever replied to any thread? Where does this logic lead to? Wikis are supposed to be free, and open! 'Bludgeon' does not simply mean 'to reply to'... its actual definition is more of a physical blow... are you seriously equating violence to replies on wikis? -- Lofty abyss 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Lofty abyss:, I'm sorry, but not now. I suggest you work hard with your current tools (perhaps with GR but not GS) and try again later. From my eyes, you're quickly falling down to death, which we simply don't want. [Technically, granting the tools is risky as then GS/GR policy dictates that distrust by a significant minority is ground for removal of the rights] Leaderboard (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what does "falling down to death" mean exactly? Perhaps GR, but I still need to go through a repeated election? And sure, if a 'significant minority' (well, it's either a majority or it's not) distrusts me then it's valid, but inactivity is grounds for distrust? -- Lofty abyss 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was referring to the (rapid) loss of trust by the community. Just a few weeks ago, you were doing quite fine, and now there is a level of opposition that is clearly unprecedented for one who was easily getting support not long ago. Leaderboard (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- While some reactions are questionable I don't any actual damages done with the tools, so IMHO GS can be given back. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not done. There's too much controversy to grant GS/GR access without a new discussion. If community still trusts you and is okay re-granting you the access, then SRGP is the best place to see it. Matiia (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Abramsky
This locked user have a sysop flag. Should this be removed? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 117.136.38.178 (talk)
- Up to the local community. They can't use it while locked. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like WMF globally banned them, so WMF should remove it IMO. --Rschen7754 23:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- The ban actions on this occasion by WMF seem to have been quite short of all the required components. Less than ideal. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Leaderboard. Should the reviewer flag be removed as well? Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cohaf: I can't see any controversy with him, so will keep it intact at this time. We don't have a local policy regarding this though. However, I personally echo Billinghurst's concern and would like the WMF to explain why he was globally banned; at least from the surface I see little evidence of disruption. Leaderboard (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Noted with thanks Leaderboard. WMF usually don't explain global bans as some involved private data but I echo billinghurst concerns too wrt to advanced permissions not removed. --Cohaf (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see no recent additions to their list of globally banned users. It's likely a sock of an already-WMF banned user. Vermont (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are lots of possibilities, I don't think that jumping to any conclusion in the absence of fact is either a considered opinion or a wise approach. While I am not expecting WMF to say why the person is banned, I am expecting to have updates of information when an account with advanced rights is blocked. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's a sock of an already-banned user, confirmed by the WMF via email. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are lots of possibilities, I don't think that jumping to any conclusion in the absence of fact is either a considered opinion or a wise approach. While I am not expecting WMF to say why the person is banned, I am expecting to have updates of information when an account with advanced rights is blocked. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cohaf: I can't see any controversy with him, so will keep it intact at this time. We don't have a local policy regarding this though. However, I personally echo Billinghurst's concern and would like the WMF to explain why he was globally banned; at least from the surface I see little evidence of disruption. Leaderboard (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Leaderboard. Should the reviewer flag be removed as well? Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The ban actions on this occasion by WMF seem to have been quite short of all the required components. Less than ideal. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like WMF globally banned them, so WMF should remove it IMO. --Rschen7754 23:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- The +sysop flag has now been removed. WMFOffice (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
AAR, hr.wiki
Regarding Your notice, these admins have been stripped of admin status because of inactivity: Denny (both admin and bureaucrat status), Joy, Dalibor Bosits, Saxum. The status was stripped / these users were desysopped by the community consensus. See the discussion and voting page on the cases of Denny, Joy, Dalibor Bosits and Saxum. The account SpeedyBotA is the bot account, ran by active admin. Kubura (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- See [1] for some badly needed context. --Rschen7754 18:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Question: @Kubura: Can you please identify, for the community, how the stewards actions that have been undertaken are contrary to the AAR policy. [I note that there is no recorded administrative process recorded for admin review for hrWP appended to that policy]. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, guys, You misunderstood me. In the notice [2] there is a line "These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights." These community discussions were held and so I provided You that information, that You can have a feedback info. We did our part, what You'll do, I don't know, I'm going to deal with other things. Kubura (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kubura: Did any of the people listed start a community discussion to retain their rights? The policy was determined that users need to positively identify that they wished to retain their rights. If they did not, then any community discussion is irrelevant. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, guys, You misunderstood me. In the notice [2] there is a line "These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights." These community discussions were held and so I provided You that information, that You can have a feedback info. We did our part, what You'll do, I don't know, I'm going to deal with other things. Kubura (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Inactivity removals on projects with policies
There are several current requests on SRP by User:Esteban16 for de.wikiversity, a project that they do not regularly edit. Without focusing too much on this specific case, will stewards perform requests like these?
There are quite a few projects that are not good at enforcing their own policies and it might be good to follow up on situations like this, especially with the recent security/hacking issues. --Rschen7754 19:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why they shouldn't, personally. Leaderboard (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just want to add that regardless if I am an editor on a wiki or not, if I find cases likes this I would consider to request stewards intervention. Last month I requested the removal of sysop flag for many inactive users on frwikibooks after talking about that with an editor from that wiki. Some people may consider this controversial or think that I should mind my own business, as I don't edit on those wikis, but I only do that with the purpose of fulfilling policies and avoiding incidents such as exposure to sensitive tools from a hacker. But I understand that it is better if this type of requests were made by a trusted user from certain wiki instead of an unknown one, however the fact that those are small wikis makes it harder to perform it. Esteban16 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Rschen7754 that with the changes in security management since we rolled out AAR back in 2013, maybe it is time for the broader community, via stewards, to remind/prod/audit those communities with identified separate processes to ensure that their existing processes are operational. If not operational, then they move them back to the default AAR. Beyond what is in place at WD to note Project:Administrators where else may checks take place? I don't see that it is unreasonable 6 years down the track to ask the communities to confirm such, or for it to be confirmed. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just want to add that regardless if I am an editor on a wiki or not, if I find cases likes this I would consider to request stewards intervention. Last month I requested the removal of sysop flag for many inactive users on frwikibooks after talking about that with an editor from that wiki. Some people may consider this controversial or think that I should mind my own business, as I don't edit on those wikis, but I only do that with the purpose of fulfilling policies and avoiding incidents such as exposure to sensitive tools from a hacker. But I understand that it is better if this type of requests were made by a trusted user from certain wiki instead of an unknown one, however the fact that those are small wikis makes it harder to perform it. Esteban16 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Generally it is a responsibility of bureaucrats to enforce local inactivity policies. If there are no local bureaucrats then stewards should perform their duties. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
New and different spambot activity leaking through
Hi stewards and global admins watching. Noting that we are seeing a different spambot type activity, and it is focusing on main nss. deleted example. It is full of links, so we may be able to look at new editors trying more than nn links added, otherwise contains a right smattering of links, domains and text. COIBot is running some diagnostics now that it is back online, and I am collecting url samples to feed into it later. I have not had the time to do a decent analysis and still in data collection mode. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, at deWP, we've got de:Special:AbuseFilter/273 do deal with this. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Schniggendiller: care to import it locally? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst:: I imported the filter to Meta now (sorry for the delay). The first time I imported a filter. What exactly do you mean with locally? Since I'm not a Meta admin, I shouldn't create a local rule, only global ones, right?
- I enabled the filter, but set logging only. We had approx. 9 % false positive at deWP, but let's see how it works now …
- Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Schniggendiller: care to import it locally? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I dropped this in as private/log only at enwiki as w:en:Special:AbuseFilter/974 to see what kind of metrics we may get. — xaosflux Talk 04:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- That filter looks no different from filter 207(global) which I added a while ago. Leaderboard (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard: that was the point - to see if enwiki is getting this type of traffic or not. — xaosflux Talk 04:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I was referring to Schniggendiller's addition of that new filter. Leaderboard (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard: that was the point - to see if enwiki is getting this type of traffic or not. — xaosflux Talk 04:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment In some exploration I am seeing that there are numbers of domains that are open and unregulated wikis, uncertain whether they are set up solely to spam whereafter used by the spambots as targets, or otherwise abandoned wikis. I am finding some value in blacklisting the problematic domains. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Inactive admins on chapter wikis
This doesn't fall within the scope of AAR, and I understand that chapter wikis can determine how they want to run themselves - but I cannot think of any good reason that someone who has not edited that wiki since 2005 should retain the admin rights: [3] I picked on nlwikimedia, but there are other chapter wikis that have admins who haven't edited since earlier this decade. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 18:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nor I, though they are their own entities,and set their policies. Probably belongs on their wikis as an open question. I would think that they can opt-in to the globally AAR and just need to ask. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- An admin on nl.wikimedia responded: [4]
- The way that AAR is currently written, it explicitly excludes chapter wikis. But there is nothing to stop stewards, or any user, from asking the question, if we don't want to go through the effort of adjusting the policy. --Rschen7754 18:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- When we put forward the proposal, we though that it was inappropriate to impose the community standard on those independent bodies. As I said above, I would think that chapters could opt-in, and if we think that the policy is prohibiting such, then we can propose that change to AAR to allow them to opt-in. That sort of change should be non-controversial as it is allowing, not imposing. The issue would be if they want half-pregnant, ie. run your checks, but don't remove, etc. and how we word the changes without putting an unreasonable administrative burden on those managing AAR. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Or we just run the same tool through the chapters as a courtesy service on an annual basis, and just notify them of the results, and let sort out their own business. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- When we put forward the proposal, we though that it was inappropriate to impose the community standard on those independent bodies. As I said above, I would think that chapters could opt-in, and if we think that the policy is prohibiting such, then we can propose that change to AAR to allow them to opt-in. That sort of change should be non-controversial as it is allowing, not imposing. The issue would be if they want half-pregnant, ie. run your checks, but don't remove, etc. and how we word the changes without putting an unreasonable administrative burden on those managing AAR. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Set the 2010s election archives to be less editable
With the steward elections for the 2010 decades now complete, I have set the archiving protection abusefilter to now to apply to the election pages in the subpages of the Stewards page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Noting that this will also include Talk pages, if it is preferred we can exclude the respective talk pages from the restriction, or put in a differing restriction. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
AAR - en.wikiquote
It doesn't look to me that en.wikiquote should be exempted with the current wording of Admin_activity_review#Policy. The English Wikiquote has neither an ArbCom, nor an active review process (there's no inactivity policy as far as I could see) nor it is an special wiki. As for the votes of confidence page, looks unrelated to inactivity given that such page is to request the removal of rights for trust issues. I think I'll add en.wikiquote back to the set of included wikis. Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why was it excluded? Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is listed on Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies since the page was created. I don't think the VoC process is intended for what AAR is aimed for. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- It has been added by a local administrator. --Vogone (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also worth nothing that it was added again to the top section (for exclusion) in the next edit. I would say that it should be checked for inactivity, as it is not specifically excluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- It has been added by a local administrator. --Vogone (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is listed on Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies since the page was created. I don't think the VoC process is intended for what AAR is aimed for. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- The last time votes of no confidence for the sole purpose of inactivity was brought up it was rejected the the local community. Ningauble is technically correct in their assessment that there is no such local policy. How that interacts with global policy is above my pay grade. GMGtalk 23:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would agree too. However, en.wikiquote is probably not the only wiki that falls into this category. --Rschen7754 00:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- To add, there's really no harm in adding it. If they have an inactivity policy or want to come up with one, they can always do so in the month after the notifications. --Rschen7754 00:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- 👍 — billinghurst sDrewth 05:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've added it back to the set of wikis where AAR is enabled, and will notify them shortly. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Notifications sent, etc. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- 👍 — billinghurst sDrewth 05:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- To add, there's really no harm in adding it. If they have an inactivity policy or want to come up with one, they can always do so in the month after the notifications. --Rschen7754 00:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)