Talk:Global sysops/2021

Opting wikis out of global sysops

What about moving wikis out of global sysops based on the policy and without local discussion? The wiki in question is de.wikivoyage with over 10 admins, a few bureaucrats, and several active recently - but I am sure there are others.

I've certainly done mass checks for opting them in - but not out. On one hand it enables global sysops to focus on the wikis that really need help, and provides less of an opportunity for a global sysop to cause issues. On the other, it decreases the ability of global sysops to respond in urgent cases. --Rschen7754 18:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ideally we should be opting them in and out as they meet the criteria unless the project explicitly discussed to be kept opted-in or opted-out. However as things stand now it is all a very manual and time consuming process. I wish we could have some web app or bot that we could check from time to time and do this more often. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This should be pretty easy to do. How would you name such bot/tool? Platonides (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Question: Why would we force any wiki out of global sysops? What are you trying to achieve. We thoughtfully, as global sysops, leave them alone based on local conditions, why force the removal of tools access. If it is just for a reporting sense, then that seems a different set of criteria and thinking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding global lock/block

I was wondering on what the community thinks of it now. For reference, the 2010 (and 2008) proposals included them but was removed in the end due to opposition. I address each part below:

Global lock/block

One of GS' purposes is to handle vandalism on small wikis, and a "negative" aspect of SUL means that vandalism can easily spread everywhere (that is, users blocked on one account with no good purpose can easily do the same on other wikis, and the same can apply to IP addresses). While stewards are well equipped to handle global locks, they do have other things to bother with as well and I believe that GS can handle locking accounts that are used purely for vandalism (or even spam, though that does not appear to be explicitly mentioned as a GS role).

Considering that GS users have a 2-week discussion period to get elected, I would argue that they are sufficiently trusted. I should reiterate that GS would not be allowed to lock accounts other than what's explicitly allowed - stewards would still lock non-vandalism accounts as before.

Global rollback

[removed, thanks MF-Warburg for pointing out my error]

Note that I am not a GS or steward myself, and hence could have gotten some of my thoughts wrong - but feel free to correct me. Leaderboard (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

1st part see this, 2nd part, any global sysop can get global rollback if they ask for it, Global Rollback policy already have this in the fine print. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Camouflaged Mirage:, I didn't spot that RfC, though feel that discussion on that has been quite low. Leaderboard (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And GR isn't a subset of GS, as GR is applicable in all wikis, GS isn't. However, as if a candidate can pass GS, there isn't much reason why they cannot pass GR. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This was recently proposed in Requests for comment/Renew Global Sysops policy (something similar before in Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2020-07#Proposed_new_user_group:_Global_blocker) and not accepted - see my comments there for my opinion.

I don't quite understand what you mean by the rollback part. Afaics, the Global Sysop group contains all the rights of the Global Rollback group already, except patrolmarks. --MF-W 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: You're right - the existing documentation (and past discussion) made me think that wasn't the case. I'll remove that part. Leaderboard (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The only difference as I pointed above is that GR is active in all wiki, GS is bound by wikiset 7. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right indeed, I have removed that part entirely as a result of my misunderstanding that MF-Warburg pointed out. I'm currently not focusing on the wikisets. Leaderboard (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean we can do another RFC, I think this needs a RFC to implement. But since the previous ones have little consensus, I think any new ones will be the same. I had no personal opinion on this yet. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment global (locks and blocks) bits are essentially the reason for being of stewards, and part of that role is not just the action of locking and blocking, and also the examination of the consequences of those actions. The consequences of those actions require access to private information, which requires identification to WMF.

If we don't have enough stewards, then get more stewards, not delegate role. It is not the role that has been allocated or the purpose of GS, we are just admins.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: This isn't something I can fully agree with. The reason is that I am focusing specifically on locking accounts due to uncontroversial vandalism alone. Just like GS aren't supposed to use their, say rollback, rights for anything else, the same would apply for locking accounts. Stewards would still be expected to lock accounts of any other nature. I don't think "access to private information" is required for detecting clearcut spam, for instance. Leaderboard (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: This is my opinion as an existing global sysop and having been a steward. I see this as being half-pregnant. It is my opinion that the solution is not to disperse the right, but to have the right number of stewards available at the right times. That needs to be part of the consideration of election processes, and review processes; not stuck onto an existing right. If a global sysop wants to lock and global block then put your hand up to be a steward.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think locking an account itself is trivial, and the difficult and time-consuming part is the followup loginwiki CU. If the underlying IP address remains unblocked (global locks are unlike local blocks that can enforce an autoblock), vandal / spambot accounts may continue to be created. Locking accounts without CU can actually be of little help. -- 94rain ^Talk 15:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Stewards make CU on loginwiki and in this way they get healthier results for global lock/blocks. I don't think it would be beneficial to give this global lock and block rights to global sysops. --Uncitoyen^talk 15:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Noting discussion re "Add 'editcontentmodel' for GS"

Those interested the reach of global sysops may be interested to participate in the discussion Stewards' noticeboard#Add "editcontentmodel" for GS (vicinity of special:permalink/21175106).  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting that this right change was undertaken.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandals in Malay Wiktionary

There is an IP address creates new pages in foreign language. Do delete the pages and block the IP address. We don't have any active admins for a long time. --Tofeiku (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tofeiku: Pages deleted and IP address blocked. The better spot for reporting issues is SRM as this is more an explanatory page for the role, rather than a request to act page. Also to note that adding your local {{delete}} template will have it listed for action of stewards and global sysops, though ore reactively and less urgently than a request to SRM.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 26 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and put your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Updating the "scope" section

Recently a en.wiktionary admin helpfully pointed out that the "Scope" section reads as if a wiki can operate only if it meets the 10 admin/3 active admin condition. Now, those rules were drawn up in 2010, and since then we've seen quite a few wikis that meet neither condition opt-in to global sysops. Hence I propose to replace the core of that section from

By default, global sysops may use this global user group's permissions on wikis that meet one or both of the following criteria:

• fewer than ten administrators exist; or
• fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months.

to

Global sysops may use their rights on any wiki that is not in the opt-out list, in accordance with that wiki's global rights policy if they exist.

What does this community think? Please do ping me if input is needed. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes no sense. --MF-W 15:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: Can you explain? Leaderboard (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: Ping (if you do not wish to supply a response that's fine - do let me know). Leaderboard (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding translationadmin to GS

I would expect that to be a fairly uncontroversial change, since translationadmin is needed to, for instance, delete pages created by the Translate extension. My proposal would be hence to bundle all of the rights that translationadmin have to global sysops. Leaderboard (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Ofcourse this would be no big deal. But I don't see any reason to do so, we have only few wikis where translation extension is enabled and they have local translation-admins to handle the stuff. Please correct me if I'm missing something. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@CptViraj: It may be true that only a few wikis use Translate, but they comprise GS-enabled wikis such as MediaWiki.org and Wikimania. Even if local translationadmin users are there, I think it would help for global sysops to be able to handle these stuff - after all, it's something that a regular admin can do (by promoting themselves to translationadmin) - only that global sysops do not have access to Special:UserRights. Leaderboard (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, not necessary, in fact it is totally disrespecting those communities and their rights to manage their affairs. As a global sysop I should not be doing any such thing. Stop trying to recreate the wikiworld in your own vision, there is nothing broken here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I don't think global sysops can delete this page, can they? Leaderboard (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced this is needed, the example project called out, mw, has 29 bureaucrats that can grant this to any of their users as needed (not to mention 167 sysops that can maintain that project already). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux and Billinghurst: I'm confused. You're saying on the basis of autonomy, but I don't get how this is any different from a global sysop deleting a regular page. To xaosflux's comment, global sysops are free to, and operate regularly there, so I'm not getting your concern either. Leaderboard (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I am sorry that you are confused. I will keep it simpler. "No, not a good idea." There is no requirement for this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  mwwiki has so many admins and crats, they really shouldn't be in need of GS's to come help with this odd feature. Also the translate extension is so rarely deployed, and I can't think of any projects that have it that don't have the ability to add translateadmin to anyone they would like to help in this area - it is certainly not a standard component of assisting small wiki's that don't have the community to support local sysops. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I can only speak for myself, but I think most mediawiki.org users/admin/crats appreciate anyone who cleans up spam/vandalism regardless of whether they're using local or global powers. If someone needs more rights to do that on mediawiki.org and is generally trusted in Wikimedia, please ask. I think it would also be useful if we could split whichever right allows one to delete translatable pages a bit further so it would be possible to grant just that right to local + global sysops instead of the full translation admin package, which seems unnecessary. Legoktm (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it isn't necessary for global sysops. On Mediawiki and Wikimania wikis have translations namespaces and I think there are enough users to deal for them. If you are experienced, on Wikimania wikis bureaucrats they add the translationadmin right easily for you. I'm not sure if that's still this process. --Uncitoyen^talk 17:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to functionaries meeting

Hello,

This is an invitation to an upcoming meeting among arbitration committee members, functionaries, administrators, and community members of all projects to discuss the implementation and community ratification or approval of the outlined enforcement pathways for the Universal Code of Conduct. The meeting is scheduled for 7 October 2021 18:00 UTC.

Please see here for further details and to respond. Those unable to attend can participate in other formats.

Let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Effect of Apple’s iCloud Private Relay

Hello!

Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users. Usually, it has been about “open proxies” or virtual private networks (VPNs). Now, there's a new Apple service called iCloud Private Relay that obscures the IP addresses of desktop and mobile users of the Safari browser.

As Apple users adopt this new service, we estimate that 3-5% of all logged-in and logged-out editors will have these obscured IP addresses. If we don't change anything, they may be blocked within a few months. This wiki may be severely affected. A lot of people editing here use the Safari browser. Next, other browser providers may do the same. The problem will grow.

The communities, users with advanced MediaWiki permissions, the Wikimedia Foundation and others need to work together. We all need to decide how the security of the wikis can be maintained. At the same time, the pathways to editing should remain open for all good-faith participants.

Read more on Apple iCloud Private Relay. Answer the questions and comment on its talk page.

Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Block on eowikt and suppressed communication

I do not think that removing messages from one's talk page is good practice, and it maybe even violates the relevant policy:

> Communication

> Global sysops must have user pages on every wiki they use their global sysop

> access on, which provides contact information or links to their primary user page

> (creation bot available currently). Generally a global user page on Meta will cover

> that requirement, and those users are asked to include a Babel declaration.

> For urgent help from a global sysop, join the IRC channel #wikimedia-gsconnect and

> type !gs in the channel to get the attention of global sysops.

> If a user cannot resolve a dispute by talking to the global sysop, they

> can place a complaint on Talk:Global sysops, or contact any steward.

> Global sysops may contact each other via the private mailing list.

I appeal the block, and complain about user and GS Billinghurst suppressing communication. Please unblock my bot, and resolve the copyright infringements on eo wikt. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: I have pointed you to the places to have conversations about eowikt, and you bring your bickering to my talk page on metawiki. The edit summary that I used when removing that post was pretty clear, and the revert is in no way violating policy. The post can still be read in the history for anyone to see. Nothing has been suppressed. I have a global user page.

When I blocked your bot, I left you a message wikt:eo:special:diff/1017984. Bots operate under a consensus of the community, and the acts that you were undertaking do not have a consensus of the community. In fact at most places, using a bot to mark pages for deletion would be considered completely contentious. Have you undertaken the actions? If not, what are you doing here complaining about me? Get your house in order.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: The summary is "this issue does not belong on my user talk page". Where does it belong instead? After having intervened at a wiki whose language you do not understand and without sufficient investigation, you are supposed to tolerate sufficiently civil complaints at your talk page. Are you aware that user "Vami" also has a bot that does "not have a consensus of the community"? Do I have to run my bot via my main account (as Vami does) to satisfy you? There were some other bots active there in the past. None of them had an exceptionally strong consensus, or actually any at all. Please explain why or how Vami's bot is good whereas my is bad. Are you aware of the harassment? Are you aware of the piracy? Why haven't you intervened earlier? Why don't you whine about other actors at that wiki? You action is contentious, as it is biased, and leaves the message the most uncivil user producing the largest quantity of complaints is right. You did not answer to email either. Also the deletion was not as "speedy" as you claim, because there is only one deletion process at eowikt. But you neither know that wiki, nor understand the language, you just acted as "Vami" ordered. With "Get your house in order." you can talk to "Vami". The "house" eowikt is not mine anymore, if it ever has been. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

eowikt issues belong on eowiktionary. Not here, nor my user talk page. Go to the community and have the discussions, and the community reaches a consensus. Global sysops act on consensus of a community. I have not intervened in content matters. I am also not particularly active at the moment due to RL.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. You intervened upon request of a single user "Vami", not a community, and without sufficient investigation. Why don't you send "Vami" to the "community" instead? There is no community there (except, of course, "Vami" is your community). And complaints about your interventions as a GS ultimately belong to your talk page. If there is a policy that would allow you to complain about me, and at same time disallow me complaining about you, please direct me to it. You are very angry instead of confessing to have made a mistake. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I temporarily blocked your bot account and asked you seek consensus for the action of using a bot for speedy deletion requests. I did nothing to your main account, and have made no direction how you use your main account. You have made no comment on my post on your eowikt talk page. I am unaware of you starting a discussion to address the matter that I specifically addressed, instead you are making comments everywhere else about my actions. Wikis have clear processes about local content, and it is time for you to have a more mature approach to consensus. Your community will only progress if your community learns to discuss issues civilly, practice consensus. Look inside to your resolution, not outside.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'm sorry for asking, but I just need some advice. A month has passed since the decision to block the robot and the blocking ended. But my personal messages (according to the list provided) have not been restored during this period. And there was not even an answer to this question in the public discussion I initiated - wikt:eo:Vikivortaro:Diskutejo#Malplenumo_de_postuloj_de_administracio. The answer "ask your dad" I do not consider the answer to the point.
What should be my next steps? Thanks, Va (🖋️) 15:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)