Poking people for followup+reminder of task

This task is spam so there.

Hmm this task seems to be very inactive. This comment is just to let all the subscribers know that this task may need updating.

@greg The bot is set up so I need to program it and then manually trigger it in order for it to run. Check the enwiki test server to find out an example of the (lots of disused) pages that the selenium user made. I also suggest deleting the pages (that are not necessary to the operation of the testing user) created by the bot after tests to reduce clutter and server load if possible. Thank you

I understand I did something wrong but on the other hand there is no evidence that is reasonably accessible on wiki that declares the user as a user for testing. I understand the purpose of the cluster is for developers to test code but again if you have a bot or botlike user that runs to test code in browsers the fact that it runs to test code in browsers should be prominently displayed on its userpage or another reasonably accessible and visible/declared place if it isn't technically feasible to prevent problems in the future. A simple page that is linked to from the wiki main page might suffice. I accept the fact that I won't be getting my rights back any time soon but I would like to point out that a ' quick glance at deletion logs' is not a (usually) accepted way of removing rights. Even if it were justified I (and potentially more users) frown upon using the database to strip rights unless its urgent as it doesn't leave an easily and publicly accessible audit trail of what a user did since these changes may be (potentially) controversial. Also on a first rule violation I'm sure most users would try and leave a simple warning first unless it were urgent/ bad to the server instead of stripping rights full on. While I'm planning to reform/adjust my view to the beta cluster I would also like to tell some users that they may need to change a little bit to serve the community better and that they should do so with haste if it were possible. I am merely pointing out possible lines/ways that we all can improve and I expect that if I do my part (which I will almost always certainly do) others should do theirs.

Thanks. Would it be possible for me to have even a subset of my old rights back or is it not possible?

Just close one of your requests as it makes it confusing for stewards @Anooprao . If I were you I'd close my local right one and use the global one as Aklapper suggested.

This change has been negated by actions as docummented in T176213. I have posted comments in my defense and am currently awaiting a response. Hopefully this issue will be dealt with in my favour (I genuinely believe they are either spam or advertising).

I get the feeling that no one will grant you rights until my issue (phabricator link) is resolved as I granted you admin. Unfortunately this issue is out of my control although if my rights are reinstated either me or another user right manager will look at your issue and deal with it.

https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Seven_Awesome_Tips_About_Capital_One_Card_Log_In_From_Unlikely_Sources , https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/What_Www_Schwab_Com_Client_Login_Is_-_And_What_It_Is_Not , https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Seven_Awesome_Tips_About_Capital_One_Card_Log_In_From_Unlikely_Sources , https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Seven_Closely-Guarded_Llbean_Barclays_Visa_Login_Secrets_Explained_In_Explicit_Detail and https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/User:Glenn432335 are all examples of pages I would/will or have deleted if I got administrator back or had retained those privileges. Please deal with them (they are also in a nice category called Spam/ads).

I understand that the beta cluster is for developers to test their code? Do correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that if a user repeatedly creates a page with a nonsense title and nonsense words with a certain link always on there it would be considered spam. Sure these users use different IPs and distribute their spam (I deleted loads of pages with nonsense titles/words on wikinews beta from 2013 with only around 7-8 spam edits per user). These people make many socks using different addresses/proxies. I may have incorrectly tagged multiple deletions as spam when they should have been tagged as advertising. Spammers usually work like this: make account using proxy/vpn, make page with nonsense link, get blocked or continue on for a while then get blocked and then repeat. Advertising and spam can be interlinked and usually do happen when a user makes multiple sock accounts to go and spam a link to their own site or malware. I believe stewards should always take responsibility for their actions and deal with spam/advertising/self-promotion as it comes in. Therefore, I am requesting a review of the pages I deleted (not quick scan of deletion logs, preferably opening a couple at random to get context) to determine if the deletions were advertising, spam, other appropriate reason or a total abuse of rights. I'd expect that at least 1 person can stand up and deal with this problem. If I am not guilty of rights abuse and if stewards are fine with it I'd like at least global-ish bureaucrat/oversight enabled (deployment wiki at least please) or my original rights reinstated. Also no offense or any similar feelings intended towards any user but please don't just think that if a user does not have many important edits/user rights on the live server that every single change made on a beta cluster is bad by default until proven otherwise. It should be the other way around. Sorry in advance if this comment has had a negative impact on you but that is how I honestly feel.

If this extension actually works as intended it would be highly beneficial to sysops and stewards in that they don't need to mass block/lock spam accounts and can simply purge these accounts with little work. Ideally we should be able to lobal lock accounts in a similar matter but I second the motion (If it works obviously as a bad extension can cause lots of havoc and chaos).

Community consensus is clear. I accept that I have not had much experience on the live server and hope to try again when I get some. I therefore see no reason to pursue this matter further (for the time being).

As you have suggested I have too many user rights on wikis for no real reason, I have stripped my rights from wikis where I don't need these rights in the forseeable future. I will however retain my rights on en.wikipedia (see log: https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:Log/Sau226 ), the deployment wiki (see log here: https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=500&type=&user=Sau226&page=&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1 ) and wikinews (see log here: https://en.wikinews.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:Log/Sau226 ) due to spamming issues. I am also formally disclosing my bot account Sau226BOT (centralauth: https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Sau226BOT ) which I have used to help me delete some but not all spam. If anyone else has any comments please feel free to speak out and tell us.

Fair enough although a second opinion can't hurt.

@Anooprao May I please ask that you don't assign tasks to me unless we have mutually agreed to it? At most you may add me as a subscriber and ping me to let me know my attention is needed. Thanks for this consideration.

Yes I mean checkuser. If somehow rights were modified so only NDAed people could user it/ add those rights or if there was a mutual confirmation like thing (1 user asks and another user (different person) has to confirm it) or a thing that could strip raw ips (spam only) from the logs would be really useful. Even a global block checkbox would make stewards' life easier when dealing with crosswiki spam.

@Aklapper AbuseFilter can't look up IPs and that I didn't mean throttling. I mean a tool which can return the IP address or a tickbox for global blocking. After all if we can block the spm range then we don't need to block accounts 1 by 1 as they come in.

No I was just wondering if those rights could be granted to non WMF accounts. Since this task says you can't grant these rights I now consider this task resolved.

@Aklapper @Samtar I have updated the task to make it a better bug report as you have requested. Feel free to try to reproduce it.

@Aklapper @Samtar I mean WMF Office IT and WMF Support and Safety. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:WMF_Support_and_Safety and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:WMF_Office_IT are the pages on the live server about these groups.

I've given you global sysop so you can deal with possible spam network wide @Mainframe98 . You will now be able to set blocks on any wiki. Please use this permission wisely and see a steward if you want it revoked.

@Mainframe98 Do you need or want steward rights across the entire (beta) network so you can stop spam cross-wiki? Please tell me your opinion as we are all sure you can be trusted with it.

Active trusted user on IRC. Closest active user who may be able to help me out here