Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2024-07

Close Request for RFC

Hello. I think the consensus is obvious in this RFC (6 people thinks this block is wrong and no one thinks this block is right), so can a steward close it? (I came here by the advice of Pppery.) RuzDD (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@RuzDD most people appear to have commented because you pinged them (-> en:WP:Canvassing). And as you've been already told by another steward [1][2] metawiki is not an appeal court and stewards do not have the power to correct individual decisions by local admins.

In case of systemic abuse (meaning large-scale, general abuse instead of single decisions which some users disagree with) the global community can find consensus for stewards to intervene in local projects (one example being Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia), but this requires much broader participation in the RfC and much broader abuse than two block decisions which might or might not be wrong.

We can close the RfC, but given that it doesn't show any systemic issues and just one individual case of users complaining about a block, our only option would be to close it without taking any action. Johannnes89 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing is an enwiki policy, so it should not affect this wiki, am I wrong?

Still, 4 people were commented and said that I should be unblocked without my pings.

I think there is a systemic abuse, but this is not obvious because I was selected a wrong name. Look at my block history. My second block is especially wrong as the sysop was blocked me with the reason that I was uploaded an AI-generated file while it was not AI-generated and there is no evidence to prove it was AI-generated.

Another example of disruptive behaviour (not sysop abuse but disruptive): Look at this edit. This comment is obviously not troll and removing this comment is obviously disruptive, and I think this can be considered as trolling. User:Nanahuatl made more edits like this.

Could I prove that there is a systemic disruptive behaviour with these examples? RuzDD (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Again: Stewards won't overturn this single block and nothing in this RfC discusses (or proves) systemic admin abuse. User:Nanahuatl is not even an admin and this is not the right place to discuss potential abuse.

In order to prove systemic admin abuse you need set up an RfC which demonstrates abusive admin actions ranging over a long time span and affecting many different individual users, not just you / Modern primat. The U4C might be an instance where you can appeal your block to in the future, but this RfC offers no basis for stewards to act, stewards are not a global arbitration committee deciding on individual, local admin actions. --Johannnes89 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done --Johannnes89 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. RuzDD (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Johannnes89 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Automatic account vanishing

Since deployment of automatic account vanishing there are a large influx of requests to global rename queue. I am afraid such amount of requests may be beyond how community can handle. GZWDer (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We will handle it. Trust us. A09|(pogovor) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We can certainly keep an eye on it, most of them are very easy to do; the vanish queue is now ~77 requests open. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @GZWDer, thank you for the message. The number of incoming requests is indeed higher as of now, but fortunately, this is only the case temporarily. The Automated vanishing system is currently processing requests that accumulated while the automated system was being created (the backlog is about 2 months long). Over half of the accumulated vanishing requests is being automatically approved with no human intervention (only impacts unblocked accounts with no edit history at any Wikimedia project). The automated approval was done to reduce the burden on the community renamers. Once the accumulated backlog clears (which should happen fairly soon), the number of requests will be significantly lower and well within the realm of what the community renamers and stewards can handle in the long term. Best regards, Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note, all "vanish" type requests in the Special:Globalrenamequeue are now clear. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: The queue is empty. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Alleged blocking reasons on Wikipedia

Please help. I was blocked by User:JBW for alleged not-here-to-build-an-encyclopedia on Wikipedia and block evasion. Now, they revoked my TPA for alleged trolling. I did nothing wrong at all. Neither did my little brother. We wanted to contribute positively to Wikipedia. The reason we created our accounts at an Apple Store is because we were not responsible for a block. My little brother told me that immediately thereafter his cab took its leave, he wanted to look at a draft.

Please look at my user contributions in Wikipedia. They may include:

my edits to my user page in Wikipedia,

my edits to Talk:Cinnamoroll asking for a concern to change all the “Cinnamon” referring to the name to “Cinnamoroll” due to a copyright issue,

some attempts to appealing a block, and

concerns regarding to something important to know.

Please look through this and tell me what you think, as well as take necessary action to help me out. GyecheonSageori (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@GyecheonSageori, sorry about your block. However, stewards are not, in any way, involved in block appealing on English Wikipedia. So, there is nothing for us to do in this case. —Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 07:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A chatbot asked me to come here and tell you about it. If you have access to Wikipedia, can you please ask them about it? GyecheonSageori (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@GyecheonSageori: You should follow this guideline to appeal your block on English Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. SCP-2000 07:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have an awaiting appeal. That means that it has not been reviewed. GyecheonSageori (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that User:JBW had revoked my TPA again although my little brother tried his utmost to show proof that he had no connection to the aerospace company’s employees despite his username. “SAMCO” is the shortened form of the aerospace company’s good name. It makes me also think of the possibility that they did not want to read it or forgot to. GyecheonSageori (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As Xaosflux already stated that "Blocks on projects with active communities and administrators are not handled here.", Stewards cannot involve the block appeal on English Wikipedia. Thus, I restored the section resloved template. Thanks. --SCP-2000 06:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If that is the case, where can I discuss the block? GyecheonSageori (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Please follow the guideline. SCP-2000 06:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have told you that I have an awaiting appeal. GyecheonSageori (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Blocks on projects with active communities and administrators are not handled here. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

For Infomation: I have proposed a change to the summary of rollbacks to avoid automatic distribution of harassment etc. in the future. Comments are welcome. phabricator:T368876 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to split Steward requests/Global

Previously discussed here: Talk:Steward_requests/Global/Archives/2024#The_state_of_SRG and Talk:Steward_requests/Global/Archives/2023#Template_bug?. After deployments of global account blocks, I propose to split this page as following (names are provisional):

Uncontroversial requests:

• Steward requests/Global locks: cases that global locks are still required, including: (1) WMF or community global banned users and their socks; (2) compromised users; (3) deceased users; (4) users with improper name that global hiding is required.
• Steward requests/Open proxy: requests to globally block open proxies.
• Steward requests/Vandalism report: requests to globally block vandalism-only or spam-only users (including accounts and IPs), ongoing cross-wiki disruptive users (including accounts and IPs), and sock puppets with cross-wiki activities. Users should provide diffs or links that justifies blocking.

Potentially controversial requests:

• Steward requests/User problems: Any user problems that does not fit the three above cases, or is otherwise controversial. A bot may automatically move any requests on the first three pages to this page after one week, to reduce the backlog of above pages.

GZWDer (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you expect this will improve? The SRG backlog has significantly decreased and this looks like it is going to be complicating things (e.g. someone report a vandalism IP range, but then find that it is a proxy so lets move the discussion to the other page). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Xaos here. I'm fine with potentially creating a page for potentially controversial requests (since we currently have no real dedicated page for such reports, meaning they are currently going to SRG instead, where they don't really belong either), but I am not of the opinion that we need four separate pages for global block/lock reports - it's really too confusing and I don't find it necessary in the current state. Like mentioned the SR backlogs are no longer as large as they were at the time of the linked discussions and I also find that they have significantly decreased to the point where they are now within control of the steward team; I and other stewards have monitored steward requests pages daily, most requests are relatively quickly handled and I wouldn't say the backlogs are so large to the point where stewards can't handle them in the current state.

I would also consider splitting SRG in the future if the backlogs get completely out of control, but given that since the end of SE2024 they have been mostly low I don't find that SRG is insufficient at the moment. EPIC (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A potential new workflow and page could be for "global account unblock appeals", but I think this is premature right now. The stewards team is currently reviewing workflows for global account blocks, some of which could result in more on-wiki requests that could benefit from a dedicated forum. The day-1 launch of that capability is not expected to cause any immediate change. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a stew here, but I can't see how this will improve things. xaoflux's suggestion for unblock appeals seems reasonable, but splitting a page that doesn't get very long anymore doesn't sound intuitive at all – it'll only cause more confusion, particularly for non-regular Meta users. --SHB2000 (t • c) 13:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)