Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2020-06

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Global Blocks should not go up to a /4

Hi. I am unregistered, but the fact that global blocks can go up to a /4 is astounding. Considering there can be collateral damage from a /56, having it go 2^52 larger is insane. Can we make it /19, like it is on enwiki? Thanks! 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:4C 18:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, I have decided to not participate. If someone feels it is resolved cease editing and put the section resolved template. All I will do is link this. The only times blocks above a /48 is recommended is for 6to4 IPv6’s. Then it goes to a /32. Please see the link for more information. 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:4C 18:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
mw:Help:Range blocks, they don't. You are speaking out of your hat. You are becoming noise rather than a valued contributor.

Ranges are blocked due to issues, not for the hell of it. If you are caught by a range block, we are comfortable with problematic blocks being raised, though as you cannot know the extent of the issue the expected solution is to edit from a created account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sitenotice for closed trwikinews

Following this config change from yesterday trwikinews has been closed. This has been done after community consensus was reached here (Phabricator ticket). Can a steward please create a site notice indicating that the wiki has been closed, in order to prevent confustion by other users. Thanks in advance. --Wiki13 talk 11:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC) (PS: I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, if not, please move it to the correct place)

Yes check.svg Done--Sakretsu (炸裂) 12:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Sakretsu (炸裂) 14:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about the knowledge of a local admin in a small wiki.

I came across this logbook today, the local Sysop block IPs and IP ranges (even large ones) unlimited, which is probably due to ignorance of IP addresses and could harm the project. Should you intervene here?--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocking an entire /16 indefinitely because one IP vandalized is an incredibly disruptive action. Some of these ranges dom't even have talk page access. WikiBayer, have you tried communicating when the local admin? That should probablg be done prior to considering steward intervention. Vermont (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I have only written here so far because I first want to get several opinions from GS / Stewards etc. And don't just start talking wildly about it. I think if several are involved in the clarification from the beginning, this works better.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Info: the admin has now all ips unblock.
Is there a way to create a kind of warning system that monitors small Wikis to detect such errors faster in the future?.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
If he unlocked it, he understood. Now I think that a system for monitoring administrative actions is a very sensitive issue. Of course, there are justifications, but local sysops would feel well invaded by being supervised. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 16:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not propose a control system for every single block, but one that only works with excessive high range blocks from all sysops in all projects in order to detect such errors early on when someone blocks hundreds of thousands of IPs from a lack of knowledge. This would only prevent an additional security tool for extreme cases --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Pro forma message: The stewards have discussed this issue in private, and decided to send a message to the sysop in question ([1]). The sysop lifted the disputed blocks. As of now, the stewards do not believe there is any other issue, and have closed the case. Should you notice similar blocks again, please do let us know. On behalf of the Wikimedia Stewards, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Steward spam-fighting poll on Phabricator

Hey everybody - The Security Team has created a quick poll for stewards (and other privileged users) who deal with spam and related incidents on-wiki: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T255161. We would greatly appreciate some timely feedback on the task, especially in regards to an estimate of time spent in dealing with these issues. We are hoping to use this data to (finally) advance a risk assessment for improved captcha/anti-automation tools. Thanks. SBassett (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Stewards' veto rights

See Steward_requests/Permissions#User_HitomiAkane@arz.wikipedia. Although this is something we really want to do, but there seems no policy basis to do so - Even a user is desysoped for abuse of rights, they may regain the right after a consensus. There is not a defined period that the user can not hold adminship either. I do not really want to amend Stewards policy to make Stewards an ArbCom-like body that can override local consensus.--GZWDer (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: Stewards act as bureaucrats at that wiki, and I would think that is part of a role of a 'crat to get to that decision, rightly or wrongly. That said, I would hope that a stewards would and should be able to communicate to the local community and that they should be closing and explaining their decision at arzWP as good 'crat practice. I would ask that Ruslik0 close the discussion properly there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Reforming the RFC process

I have made the above proposal, which would involve the responsibilities of stewards. --Rschen7754 21:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio on closed project

While importing to s:mul:, I found copyvios on a locked project. Is it possible to temporarily get admin rights on there to delete them? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to edit/delete there anyway, even with adminship. Only stewards can do so. You would need to let us know what is copyvio, so we can delete it. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: Things in the equivalent of the File: namespace. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Could you post links here, please? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: Sorry, that was needlessly obscure of me, they are here. Other pages there are bad or useless or should otherwise be deleted but those are files that explicitly say "copyright so-and-so" with no CC declaration. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
You mean pdf files? Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Yes, all but one of those files is a PDF. I'm not sure why this isn't being communicated but files like s:ht:Fichye:EVedrine leksik kreyol.pdf and s:ht:Fichye:Kreyol vedrine.pdf and s:ht:Fichye:Leksik kreyòl.pdf have explicit copyright notices on them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I deleted these three files. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Global sysop concerns

Could you please clarify what would be the proper way to raise concerns regarding a global sysop, and whether they should retain that position? Seraphimblade (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade I'm a bit ashamed as a GS that I actually had to look it up but I believe an RFC is the correct route per Global_sysops#Removal. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I saw that, but it's rather light on details. I wasn't sure if there's a particular way the RfC should be formulated, if it needs to be announced/posted anywhere, etc. So I was hoping for clarification on that specifically. Seraphimblade (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately it comes down to if stewards want to. Stewards rarely want to do anything that might be controversial because they have to go through confirms. My reading of the policy is that the RfC is “advisory”. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
There isn't a set formula. You could name it "Review of GS access for X", and link it here when done. It might also be worth raising the concerns more informally here first; stewards can in theory remove GS access at their own discretion. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think raising it informally here is the best step. If there’s not buy-in from a steward standpoint (or at least openness to the idea) I don’t see an RfC going much of anywhere. Not a critique, but most of the global policies are written that way, and it does have some benefits. It just means you also need to know if starting an RfC is worth it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated, Ajraddatz. The concerns raised were that Tulsi Bhagat (who I will notify momentarily) is writing promotional material and may be engaging in undisclosed paid editing. On the English Wikipedia, they created Gautam Kumawat, which was repeatedly deleted as promotional. Upon checking, it was discovered that they advertise "social media support" on Facebook, and the subject of that article has requested paid editing on job sites (see discussion at their English Wikipedia talk page). Regardless of whether it was or was not for pay, however, it is concerning to have a global sysop posting inappropriately promotional articles, as they are autopatrolled everywhere and local communities cannot revoke that. Were this an editor with the local autopatrolled flag, I certainly would have done exactly that. Seraphimblade (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    Two things to point out (one technical that you had no reason to know beforehand): Global sysop only grants permissions on projects that have not opted out (list), and is not active on the English Wikipedia. The flag in question is global rollback. As an enwiki sysop, you can ask the user to stop using permissions from that global group on enwiki -- difficult in this case because they are passive rights, but if there are concerns with the user's page creations you could request that they only create pages in the draft space to be reviewed by other users before moving to the mainspace, for example. You can block the user if they violate those conditions. I'm no longer a steward so I can't speak to the user's GR/GS access, but different projects treat undisclosed paid editing differently so I'm not sure what could/would be done about that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    A while ago (around when I became a GR) I brought up my concern that I shouldn't have local autopatrol by virtue of being good at anti-vandalism, and proposed that my bot automatically un-review articles that are only autopatrolled by virtue of the creator being a GR. The discussion didn't lead anywhere, but Seraphimblade if you want to start another thread at w:WT:NPR it might gain traction (merits of this specific case aside) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for pointing out the exemption list. I was indeed not aware of that. I still think it's a bit of cause for concern, but that certainly eases my mind as that goes. Seraphimblade (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Seraphimblade: There is precedent for using a RFC to remove the status, for example Requests for comment/Privacy violation by TBloemink and JurgenNL. --Rschen7754 01:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello all, It starts all from here - I previously had made a worse article which was deleted by that time. Yesterday, I asked Seraphimblade on his/her enwiki talk page to restore the article to my userspace so that i can fix it. He/She said, "...I do not restore advertisements. You can try again, but please ensure to stay strictly to neutral language and referenced facts." - To recover my bad, I think of giving it a try to recreate and this time I think i have tried my best to write it in neutral language with web references which has Wikipedia article. I haven't entered any information in promotional tone. Praxidicae pointed out about "Social Media help". Basically, it was just "Free Social Media Support", an idea theft from here (WMF google forms). The intention behind it was to provide support to my colleagues/friends. It's NOT for pay and/or business inquiries. I clearly understand WMF's Vision and what we all are doing. I've clearly stated there on my enwiki talk page already that I am not involved with any paid editing sites and any clients. I am editing Wikipedia because it's my hobby. I do it in my free time. It's for fun. Not for receiving any kind of payment. I also stated there that if the article doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies, feel free to delete it, and I am not gonna ever create and/or edit that article again. I've no any personal interest. That's all. I've no words left now. I am not sure If i am gonna edit for a while and put my comments here further more. Thank you for your understanding! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 04:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Tulsi Bhagat, to clarify, has Gautam Kumawat or anyone associated with him or the businesses in which he is involved in contacted you at any point? Also, when you refer to "free social media support", does that in any way include helping someone edit or create a Wikipedia page about them or someone they have a conflict of interest with? The google forms link, which I am not sure of the source of, has nothing whatsoever to do with editing Wikipedia and rather appears to be a request form for specific subjects to be featured on Wikimedia social media accounts. Regards, Vermont (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: Tulsi stated he wasn't contacted by anyone for social media support. I think Tulsi received the message: refrain from creating articles that could be in someone's interest and go through AfC instead. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 07:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

So now he goes on wikibreak and doesn't answer questions? --Rschen7754 05:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess this won't be turning blue anytime soon, then. ——SerialNumber54129 09:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Without considering this concern I will support this user for stawardship in 2025 (but not 2021, which in my opinion is too soon). I make no comment on how serious this concern is; for now, it is undetermined.--GZWDer (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I would encourage stewards to review Tulsi's global sysop access if they have indeed gone inactive and refused to answer questions. Accountability is important in anyone with advanced access, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. And given the history of problematic behaviour here this should absolutely be followed up on. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
+1 I have read this through on June 17th and thought at first that this should be solved locally at enwiki. Due to the denial of an answer and the "wikibreak" in connection with this problem, I am also in favor of a review of the global permissions.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, I think it's all sorted as it's local enwiki concern. I've answered the very much questions there. The article has deleted already, and I've assured I am not gonna create that and/or any article again. I don't wanna discuss my personal life, but as wikibreak is a mystery; I wanna clear that I am on wikibreak for something really serious. My grandfather has admitted in hospital on 17th of June. So, I am looking after him, and i am not able to give my time here. I am completely inactive since then. Also, if you would like to review my global sysop access, feel free to do so. I don't mind. Do the needful. Thank you! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 17:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The conversation you link to with @Praxidicae, Nick, and Seraphimblade: does not, in fact, suggest that it's "all sorted": concerns continue to be expressed as to whether you should hold advanced permissions in light of your answers (such as they are). ——SerialNumber54129 12:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It is absolutely definitely not sorted - you fucked off without answering a number of questions, and what questions you did answer created more questions and a distinct feeling you're bullshitting the community and treating it with utter contempt. Your behaviour in relation to paid editing, your refusal to be fully accountable, and whatever it is you're upto with regards to off-wiki activities are more than sufficient for me to believe you're not a suitable person to retain any global permissions. I'm fully in favour of Tulsi having their global sysop access removed, and will vote in favour of that any where, any time, any place. Nick (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Tulsi, the proper response to legitimate concerns about your contributions is not to run away for a few days and come back claiming it was all sorted when it very obviously has yet to see it's end. I have no choice but to agree with the above statement by Nick, as your behavior during this has not been remotely consistent with what is expected of editors holding the global rights you do. Many important questions remain unanswered, and ignoring them for a few days does not mean it's "all sorted", not remotely so. I've been completely surprised by your behavior during this; you hold administrator permissions on multiple content projects and you've created incredibly promotional articles on the English Wikipedia with very unreliable sources, copying directly from these promotional spam sites and pasting into the article very obviously inappropriate content. Further, you advertised "social media help" on some of your contact pages, which you clarified to include Wikimedia projects, and some evidence exists that Gautam was actively communicating with people to try and get an article made. This is all incredibly suspicious, especially considering your recreation of the article, and you have done nothing except increase that suspicion since concerns were raised. I sincerely hope your created pages on the Nepali and Maithili Wikipedias are not the same promotional spam that you created on the English Wikipedia. Your contributions have shown a reckless disregard for copyright, reliability, neutrality, and accountability. For those reasons I believe you to be unfit for global sysop permissions, and endorse either stewards directly removing you from the team or an RfC for this issue. I did not want to ever have to write something like this, but your actions leave me no choice. Regards, Vermont (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tulsi Bhagat: What would you recommend to any other global sysop in a similar position? My thinking here is what would you expect should be the position of global sysops in this situation? Is this about the individual or the required trust and integrity of global sysops?  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It's definitely not sorted. I've crossed out "all sorted" statement of mine. First of all, I am not bullshitting with the community. Secondly, I am being very honest, I am not involved in paid editing. Neither Gautam Kumawat nor anyone has contacted me for creating any article. Absolutely, enwiki is very vast than other wikis and I am not proficient in English so, I stumbled. I didn't mean to create promotional articles. As already said, I wouldn't create any article on enwiki. In regard to global sysop access, I've never ever misuse of the GS tools, and my intention is not bad. Ever since, i became a GS i used the tools wisely. Also, here is misunderstanding about "social media help" or "Free Social Media Support", I want to clear that it has nothing to do with creating articles. Various events take place every month such as Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos etc., to reach higher audiences for these event, i had posted that in my social media handles if someone has more wiki-events to promote and i can help with that. Truly, I am not ignoring and running away from the concerns raised. I would be happy to sort it out ASAP, but It's like my time is not going well IRL. I don't know, if i have put it all well in words. Never mind. If community is not liking to have me here, I would myself resign. I've never thought that it will end like this, but who cares? — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 17:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Can't all this be considered a very serious (and last) warning for Tulsi Bhagat and we leave it at that assuming no further incidents? I can imagine not responding swiftly when a family member has been hospitalized. I can imagine offering technical help to get more people involved with wiki. Not being proficient in English means Tulsi should have created a draft instead, but that's spilt milk. People make mistakes. I generally forgive them if they recognize their mistakes, and I think Tulsi has. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 21:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The stewards have discussed this case, and agreed the global rollback right was abused. Subsequently, Tulsi's global rollback and global sysop permissions have been revoked. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: Sorry, I must have missed something, but I thought this was about suspicion of paid editing and article creation. Where does rollback come into this? — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 08:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz GR is a user group that has multiple rights. The stewards believe that the right Autopatrol has been abused.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 08:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@WikiBayer: Thanks. I had figured it out myself some time after asking, but thanks for confirmation. I created a new discussion Wikimedia Forum#Why does global rollback include autopatrol? Btw, linking my talk page doesn't ping me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking action. --Rschen7754 18:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Tuanminh01's blocked

I see when he blocked member he usually banned for edit own talk page, and usually banned without reason. I'd like all stewards to take away him sysop permissions Ref: [2]
--Cloud 9 x V.A.V.I boy x Yes, I'm color full (J.Smile) 03:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I): I think you have to start a desysop discussion/vote on viwiki. If that's successful, you can request the removal of rights on Steward requests/Permissions. (according to Bureaucrat, bureaucrats on viwiki can't remove admin rights, besides, Tuanminh01 is a bureaucrat) See instructions on viwiki. (Google translate humor: "The recall must then be reported to the meta for a flight attendant to perform." flight attendent=steward Face-wink.svg) — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 05:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)