Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2023-11

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

`abusefilter-modify-blocked-external-domains` for GS

Can I suggest adding the abusefilter-modify-blocked-external-domains right to global sysops, as a sysop-level right on most wikis? It is eventually replacing the spamblacklist system which just requires editinterface which GS already has. Let me know if I should start a full RFC or proper discussion, but I feel this is probably uncontroversial. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Done Yep, absolutely, it's already enabled for the sysops by default on the extension! Thanks --Superpes15 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Superpes15 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In the past 7 months, 587 tickets have been handled by the Steward clerks program. I would first like to thank the team for the time that they have taken to handle that queue.

With this success so far, we are expanding the steward clerks program in two ways:

  • SRGP will now have the clerking assistance of the steward clerks in relation to GIPBE requests
  • In the near future, Steward clerks will be given access to the steward tickets where proxy blocks are at play on UTRS (technical implementation still needed)

At this time, we are looking to expand the team further. There will be an open application through November 9th 11:59 UTC. Users can apply by emailing myself a quick paragraph about why you would be a good fit - it does not need to be a resume, but it does need to highlight your experience. Requirements for the role are as follows:

  • Have remained in good standing with all Wikimedia Communities for the past 6 to 12 months
  • Signed or willing to sign the ANPDP and the VRT confidentiality agreement
  • Been active for a period of 3-6 months
  • Have a positive record of reporting actionable concerns (SRG or other steward related venue) and remain in good standing with the stewards internally
  • Willing to use off-wiki communication methods to communicate about this program

-- Amanda (she/her) 05:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I too would like to express my appreciation for clerks' committment. Vituzzu (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Locking of this account

Hello, is it possible to permanently lock this account globally at my own request so that you can no longer log in? Thank you, RandomDuck5000 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't do that; feel free to scramble your password and just never come back. — xaosflux Talk 23:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
All right, thanks anyway RandomDuck5000 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove global rollback for Quinlan83

I regret to make this request but I thought we'd have to discuss this as a public matter. My talk page was vandalized by ja:LTA:GNSN just some minutes ago, and Quinlan83 kindly reverted the vandalism. I appreciate their patrol actions, but they got into an edit war with the LTA using rollback. The history page is polluted because of that, and this time the reverts even ended up in a steward having to OS multiple revisions. I visited User talk:Quinlan83 to give them thanks and to ask them at the same time to not do an edit war with vandals, but it appears that they have been warned the same thing twice before (so I came here rather than posting the message on the talk page). Per "the rollback feature should never be used in a revert war" on Global rollback and for the purpose of getting them to keep in mind that rollback can never be a deterrence to vandalism (only block and page protection can), I decided to make this request.

I do not mean to sound irresponsible but my primary purpose lies rather in getting them to take this matter seriously than in leading this to actual removal of access, although this must still be done if a consensus is made. The thing is, global rollbackers should never "bait" and excite vandals by giving them additional and unnecessary opportunities (=revisions) to vandalize. --Dragoniez (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the right space to seek "removals of the rights of others". Isn't Removal of access the right place? This place is used to gain specific user-rights following community consensus. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Removal of access is the place for requests to go following community consensus. Abuse of global rights should usually be reported to the stewards' noticeboard or privately to stewards(_AT_) --Ferien (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as is often noted, some vandals are free to wander around undisturbed for a while before a decisive intervention. And a simple rollback is not enough until they are blocked: and in the meantime some vandals act undisturbed, making improper changes and equally defacing the targeted page. Clearly my intervention was not intended to be harmful and if so I am sorry and I apologize, paying more attention for the future @Dragoniez:--Quinlan83 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your volunteering and I know they were AGF edits. But this isn't the point and I'm not convinced because that's far different from your previous reply to Ferien on your talk page. I believe that no-revert-war-using-rollback is something expected for every rollbacker and this is what w:WP:BRI is about, to which Ferien referred you. What concerned me the most is that this case involved OS, and the relevant username in the edit summaries of your reverts is still there, which I believe to be partially because of the repeated reverts. Dragoniez (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I wasn’t sure where to post this either but I had found a request for removal of access on this page, so I posted this here. I don’t believe Removal of access is the right place but if this should be moved to stewards' noticeboard, I won’t object. Dragoniez (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Stewards' noticeboard is indeed where previously discussions about (potential) removal of global rollback have been taken place (e.g. [1][2]). I agree that en:WP:Don't edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets should be followed. But if this is a first time incident I think a reminder of those principles instead of removing global rollback should be sufficient. Johannnes89 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and feedback. I moved the entire section. Dragoniez (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Dragoniez: looking to frame the situation: is this something you are only seeing as an issue in this instance, here on the meta-wiki? I expect that had Quinlan83 have asked to be a local patroller, I would have easily granted as a local admin (they likely never bothered since they had the access via GR) - meaning this may really only be a local issue. — xaosflux Talk 12:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    I don't consider this to be instance-particular because we can see a simliar thing here. Right, this issue wouldn't have arisen if they had a block right on the relevant projects, but I expect a global rollbacker to be familiar with the nature of non-admin rollback, which can never prevent further vandalism and in the worst case can even have detrimental effects like increasing the burden of having to check (unnecessarily as many) revisions for revdel. Dragoniez (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Dragoniez I'm not suggesting the remedy would be that they should be an admin/global sysop, just trying to determine if this is really only an issue here on the meta-wiki, or something you are referring to us regarding multiple projects? — xaosflux Talk 15:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux That would be the latter, multiple projects. Dragoniez (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Dragoniez than you, will you please provide supporting Diffs for this claim. — xaosflux Talk 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux My talk page history brought me here and the link to cs wikiversity in the "Misunderstanding" section on their talk page let me find [3], and histories such as [4], [5], and [6] may be relevant. Anyway, what brought me here is repeated warnings posted on their talk page about revert wars, which made me wary of whether they understand things like en:WP:DENY after those warnings. Because my main concern is on what (non-admin) rollback should be like, I'm sorry I didn't really see how those local/global things are related. Dragoniez (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Dragoniez thank you for the additional information. I asked because if the concerning actions were only occurring here on the meta-wiki, I'd likely defer review to the local community for how they would like to deal with this. Keep in mind, that while the concepts may be relevant, user essays from the English Wikipedia are not global policies so simply not following ":w:en:WP:DENY" or ":w:en:WP:RBI" is not in itself a global issue, especially with contributions outside of the English Wikipedia. The potential for access removal would be measured against the global rollback policy. I do agree that in general tools besides reversion are necessary to deal with persistent vandals, and that advanced permission holders are expected to know this and when to ask for assistance. — xaosflux Talk 18:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux Thank you for the explanation, I got it fully. Let me note that I'm nevertheless hoping that this will end up in "keep" if possible, because we don't want to lose the active rollbacker who's been contributing on multiple projects. But it'd be worth a blame if someone keeps bringing up the same issue especially when they've previously been warned of it, and this is the thing I'm worried about. I now would like to hear from @Quinlan83 on this. (I basically have the same view as Johannnes89's, as long as the repetition can be taken care of). Dragoniez (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    If I can allow myself to have my say, having also been asked, I don't enjoy waging wars of modifications at all (I too have a real life and I could spend my time differently rather than reverting a vandal several times: after all, this thing it's generally not part of my background. I often find the modification incorrect or vandalistic, I restore it and everything ends there). In this specific case, having seen a vandal with a provocative verve, I fell into his trap. It can happen, even if it shouldn't happen, but we're here to improve, right? My patrolling, both in the wiki to which I belong and of which I am administrator, and cross wiki, has always been aimed at maintaining a certain basic cleanliness. I can say that I have always acted with good intentions to ensure that the encyclopedia could be used by everyone without incorrect, vandalistic or misleading insertions. I would never dream of using my role for harmful or vandalistic acts (and it is clear, despite the right reminder given to me here, if I used my functions to cause damage I would just have to keep quiet. But I repeat, I fell into the trap of a vandal that he wanted to provoke and succeeded). It is clear that, as expressed just before, I will use this further reminder to prevent situations like this from happening again. After all, as pointed out just before, you grow, you gain experience, you understand what must be strictly avoided (and what is reported in this space must be strictly avoided) and only in this way can you acquire even more wisdom and critical/analytical ability. I therefore hope that this parenthesis can end here. For my part, there is always a desire to collaborate for a clean and balanced encyclopedia. A greeting--Quinlan83 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    I'd like to chime in here, although I wasn't asked. My point of view is that Quinlan83 might have exceeded with some rollbacks, but this can be in some way understood given their overall commitment in keeping things neat and clear from spam and vandalism. I indeed appreciate a lot their work in our common home project, where the admin mop has been given in 2022 July, and in the last six months their action show a real high effort and the first annual reconfirmation shows warm thanks and approval from the community. Of course I second all the recommendations made to Quinlan83 to strictly avoid any edit war and to immediately seek for help from an active sysop or steward, but I humbly suggest to avoid if possible a deflag that will not really help any projects and possibly demotivate an active volunteer. Thanks. --M/ (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment We all make mistakes, and we often are all close to someone's boundary of what is appropriate when we edit with the use of advanced rights. What we need to have is people who can learn and to navigate these boundaries.

    Background: Don't feed trolls is a very important practice that those with advanced rights need to be able to understand to practice. Similarly, global rights are also something that one needs to understand are a privilege and one needs to use them lightly within the bounds of communities where one is not a permanent wikizen. That a person with GR is forgetting both those principles and doing edit wars on a user talk page (low visibility abuse and essentially quarantined) are a significant fail. It would seem from the local user talk page of Quinlan83 that this has been discussed with them previously, and they still let their ego guide their actions, and forget the principles and the role that they are meant to be playing.

    I hear M7's PoV, though I would also reflect that it is not just the person's demotivation to be considered. If the user is going to retain the right, they need to publicly provide a mea culpa and for us to clearly see that they have reflected on their inappropriate use of the tool, and how they will do better. Without a clear admission of fault and learning, they should not retain the rights. The WMF community needs these aspects to be understood if we are to have confidence that the contributor knows that they are here to benefit the communities, not the other way around.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't consider this a willful violation of policy. The question remains if it is a consistent violation of local or global policies through ignorance or an inability (through a language barrier) to understand the local policies, with the relevant policy being the prohibition on using rollback in a revert war. Many wikis exempt the removal of vandalism from their edit warring policies, so I can certainly see why Quinlan83 might have seen their edits as not being in violation of policies. However, they have previously been directly warned not to engage in revert wars with vandals and that one of their revert wars actually involved edits that turned out not to be vandalism. These warnings did not specifically say "this is a violation of policy and if you continue I'll ask the stewards to remove you", but they should have been cause for reflection at the very least. On that note: @Quinlan83: Why did you continue to revert war with vandals after being asked not to, and what will you do in the future to prevent this situation from happening again? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    ^much of this. Please expand on the "...what will you do..." part to include "how you will do it" as well. — xaosflux Talk 23:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed. This is about the most minor "violation" that can occur: reverting a vandal too much. It's a behavior we try to discourage (encouraging people to instead report and wait for an admin rather than edit-warring with a vandal), but not one that needs to be enforced with removal of the tools, especially if this does not continue. I would like to see Quinlan83 explain their understanding of why concerns were brought here, and that it won't reoccur. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 00:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I want to remind everyone that, per global rights policy, this should not become a Request for comments. I will raise the matter in the private ML, please await the outcome of our investigation, thanks. --Superpes15 (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    While it may be proper to remind the crowd that the decision rests with stewards, I also don't think public discussion is harmful. My 2c is that this is an example where continued reverting wasn't particularly appropriate, but I don't see intentional misuse or reckless use of the tools here. A simple reminder should be sufficient. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    I can agree with you, but that's exactly what I would like to avoid (making this a discussion where each user gives their opinion on whether to remove or not, and which in any case should not have value for the purposes of the decision, given that this is not an RfC), I also find that this type of discussion (not even foreseen by the policies) can become harmful to users and create disagreements or, as M7 pointed out, decreasing motivation! Superpes15 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Superpes15: I think that commentary is exactly what is needed here, though NOT a !vote on keeping or removing rights by participants. I also don't think that it is appropriate for any steward to dissuade commentary on the community's right to set the standards and expectation where it is done politely and with a proper level of civility.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: If you are thinking that I am "censoring" you are totally off the mark on the matter. I'll explain better the points:
    1. The comments have no use for the purposes of a steward's decision, given that in this case we do not look at the opinions, as it is not an RfC;
    2. A discussion of this type can only lead to negativity:
      • Friction between users with advanced rights;
      • Give rise to the idea that GR/GSs problems are discussed on public pages, thus "ruining" the user's reputation, and therefore GR/GSs could be less inclined to take actions and work to avoid this type of discussions;
      • Furthermore - whatever the result - there is a risk of destroying the morale of users with advanced rights (be they the reporting user, the reported user, a participant or any other reader) and honestly I don't think we need this.
    I hope this makes my comment above clearer! Thanks Superpes15 (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Considering the enormous inconvenience that has been created, considering that I admit that I was wrong, I apologize to the community and to those who may have been annoyed by what I did, underlining that from now on I will avoid edit wars with vandals and that I accept any decision will be taken peacefully, having acted in total good faith. A greeting--Quinlan83 (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Quinlan83 thank you for the update. In general, vandalism certainly should be removed - given this project as an example, if you come across a vandal that is continuing after being reverted, what would be a good way for you to proceed (besides ignore them and move along which is of course always an option)? — xaosflux Talk 11:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Thanks to you: clearly ignoring the vandal after the first revert is always a valid option. Or, noticing particularly harmful vandals, possibly contact a local admin. When I notice an LTA it is dogmatic for me to report the LTA (which I have done since I started patrolling cross wiki), and there would be examples of at least two historical LTAs appearing on Wikipedia at regular intervals and I have never failed to report them as soon as I discover them. However, there are two options: 1) ignore after the first revert or 2) report--Quinlan83 (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)