Talk:Global sysops/2022

Question

Can global sysops edit interface pages with CSS and JS in GS-wikis? Thingofme (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thingofme: Yes, they can as they have the editsitejs, editsitecss, edituserjs and editusercss rights. Majavah (talk!) 08:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think in 2018 local sysops can't edit sitewide CSS and JS, but I think global sysops should not be granted this right for security problems. Thingofme (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thingofme: there are only 23 GS's and they must be approved after a minimum two week review and stay active to keep access. Intadmin to their wikiset was carefully considered previously before this was added. It was deemed to be more appropriate than collecting that access on each local project, while gaining full global-interface-editor access would be excessive. Should any GS misuse their access, they may be swiftly sanctioned by reporting to the stewards or by failing a vote of confidence here. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And also GS is required to use 2FA whereas administrators are not. --Rschen7754 19:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and 2FA was added precisely for this reason! Personally I don't see where the security problems are, especially in wikis without sysop the IA rights can be useful, even for routine maintenance activities. Honestly, all the GS flags are used carefully and only when necessary, always without altering the local community consensus, so personally I don't see any problems. P.S. I thought the same way when I was not a GS :) Superpes15 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Actions by Praxidicae

Hi all! First of all, I am not pleased that this situation got to the stage when stewards need to be involved but I am left with no choice, so I ask stewards to look into following set of events. Being admin on ukwikibooks I descovered that User:Baranov107 was baned indefinitely by global sysop Praxidicae with rationale "Spambot". Straightaway I thought that it looks weird because 1) user certainly does not look like a bot 2) two years ago user had decent contribution uk:b:Гітара (which involved link to other website but it was not off). Later I dicovered that user was banned on all small wiki projects. In conversation with global sysop I discovered that reason for ban were spam contributions to OTHER projects. These edits indeed look spammy but I do not see clear reason for bans on small wiki projects. On ukwiki, user also had some not bad contributions. I understand that at least some of edits were definiely spam, such bans on small wikis seems to me as rushed decision, better to be held by local admins, who understand language. I ask stewards to give their opinion on this situation. reNVoy (user talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained why I blocked them - I'll gladly change the reason to "spammer" as spambot is just an automated edit summary. They have only contributed copyright violations and SEO spam (which they are paid to insert cross wiki, to the tune of hundreds of edits). Which has also resulted in their URLs being blacklisted. If any functionary/steward would like, I'll also gladly send the off (and even on-wiki evidence, where Baranov admits on my meta talk page that they were abusing their editing rights) wiki evidence if needed. The only outcome here should be a global lock for Baranov's account. Praxidicae (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Renvoy, thank you for your concern in this case. It's difficult when people, especially longer-term editors, mix good contributions in with policy-violating ones. The prevailing goal here is certainly to prevent ongoing abuse of Wikimedia projects, and if this user continues with their cross-wiki link spam a lock would likely be necessary independent of the positive contributions. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vermont I totally understand that. If steward decides to lock account on the basis of cross-wiki spam, thats their decision, however my concern is that prior to such decision, global sysop bans user on every small wiki, where user had edits for edits in other wikis. The only case where I think it is acceptible to do so is in case of abuse of multiple accounts. I think Praxidicae does great job of seeking cross-wiki spam but this particular case makes me worry a little. reNVoy (user talk) 18:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We are all humans, and all have opinions. The GS is doing their best job to protect the wikis from abuse. The editor is mixing good and bad, and there should be no expectation that we have to wade through that rubbish, and the user has total control over being a good editor. To me this only belongs on the talk page of the GS, no where else, there has been no abuse, and you are welcome to leave your opinion and suggestions for improvements.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)