“ If community members think that there is a breach of a ban order, then it should be reported to WMF via m:Talk:Office actions for their investigation and resolution. Admins here may locally enforce any block, there is no requirement for an admin to undertake any blocking action, nor to enforce the will of WMF. This has zero impact on our local blocking policy. We pick our battles, and we don't let people bring their crusades here, especially not from enWP. I suggest follow the basic rules of manage disruptive editing in this scenario, and that applies to all parties. ”

“ If any objection by anyone can overturn policy and consensus discussions, then consensus is meaningless. If someone has an objection to policy or a closed discussion, then that person should initiate a discussion to reverse previous decision or to change policy. It should not be within the power of any individual to override policies and community decisions. ”

“ To me these stances are incongruous and, in fact, my immediate thought is that they should be the other way around: more weight should be given to seeking and assessing community consensus before changing policy and guidance than what is needed a priori for individual admin actions: if the policy and guidance is good, most admin actions will be good, and individual mistakes can be handled (overturned) after the fact. ”

“ The editor in the above discussion seems to be embroiled in a cross-wiki skirmish with some other users. From my perspective, all I can see is good faith edits being repeatedly reverted by non-admin users who claim that there is some sort of global ban that empowers them to do so. What is the expectation for how we handle these? Normally I would consider the bulk deletion of good-faith comments and the repeated edit warring to be vandalism, and I would block Antandrus and DannyS712 accordingly. I see no indication that this link implies that the user being reverted is subject to a global ban. ”

“ It is also entirely reasonable to create a similar-but-not-identical template to fulfil a specific purpose. If IP user had been damaging {{small scan link}}, or had begun to deprecate it without a discussion, action could have been taken for vandalism, but this was not the case here. Since {{project}} was clearly intended to improve upon {{small scan link}}, the "redundant" rationale for speedy deletion was not entirely appropriate; it would have been better to object to the template creation on Template talk:Project, and give IP user a chance to justify themselves, before speedy deleting it. ”

“ I don't appreciate it... in that you are having the discussion in a public facing page that carries authority similar to policy. Such pages should be stable (barring trivial changes) until a consensus is established for change. And it doesn't help that the discussion isn't neutral: it is triggered by a specific issue that is the subject of controversy, and as such all observers will be coloured by that context. In other words, the discussion should be had here and Wikisource:Adminship#Obligations of administrators changed only when consensus for that change is reached. ”

“ We do however have a policy that requires discussion before deleting a template unless it falls under a speedy deletion category. You'll note that the template was deleted as being G4 Redundant, not for being Created Without Discussion, or Intended To Supersede, or Using an Unfortunate Name. All of that is irrelevant.—It seems to me that the clear indication that the template was "intended to deprecate" is also a clear indication that the template is not Redundant. ”

“ The following discussion is closed:
consensus is to add blocking to the available toolkits for abuse filters; Comment will get overall abuse rights modernised to standard WMF settings
One of the standard abilities for abuse filters in mediawiki is to allow blocking of accounts or IP addresses (Block the user and/or IP address from editing) based on criteria in a filter. It has not been something that we have typically needed over the years as we haven't had persistent vandalism or spam. ”

“ I meant a serif font, and fixed that. The discussion is, in part, how "we can be better". It was not an 'issue', it is an example for anyone to demonstrate how a very probable situation could be resolved. My recollection is that you prefer that layout, so make it the default display, the inclusion of a serif font is incidental. In a hypothetical situation User X thinks that other documents should be displayed in serifs, arguing they must emulate the printed page, that it is already widely used and is [obviously] an improvement. ”

“ A failed vote of confidence or a failed reconfirmation is an expression that that trust has been lost, which in turn implies that that trust existed in the first place. This bears on the previous point: there needs to be a presumption that they act in accordance with policy until the community decides otherwise. All the admin actions relevant in this context are inherently controversial (otherwise the tools wouldn't have been needed) , so if the bar is that low then we might as well say that all admin actions should go to the community first. ”

“ Your added text would change policy so that if any established user challenges a block, then the blocked account must be unblocked and cannot be blocked until a community discussion is held to obtain consensus, even in cases where the blocking admin has additional (even sensitive) information. It also strains against the blocking policy's guidelines for controversial blocks. I would disagree with a single opposition constituting a failure of consensus and the need to obtain consensus. ”

“ Policy is (ideally) made when all heads are cool, and an admin acting in accordance with that policy is acting correctly and on established community consensus even if someone disagrees with that policy once an individual application of it has come up. The focus then should be on judging community consensus for changing the policy, not on castigating the admin that acted on the policy the community had given him. ”

“ Since I offer my participation because I imagine it to have some value, I would refrain if that were not the case. --Xover (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC) For myself, I prefer a solution. Clarity, brevity, edit the page or propose changes. What seems to be happening is bogging this down with blather, assertion and process and keeping the fairly simple clarification to admin actions from being enacted. Why do you think it would be any different to wikipedia, that being an admin imbues one some overriding authority, if they screw some lesser user around that is their business. ”

“ For admins to be effective there must be some presumption that they have acted correctly until the community has reached a consensus otherwise. The current text presumes all admin actions are incorrect until confirmed by the community. This assumes all actors are acting constructively and in good faith (most blocked editors here do not fall into those categories) , and that human beings will not have human failings (frustration and outrage can blind all of us in the short term) when a specific contentious issue is "hot". ”

“ Currently I'm conducting surveys in various social media platforms as part of my master's thesis. The focus is on the community guidelines of the respective social platform and the acceptance by its users. In order to conduct my research I would need a Spam-whitelist for google forms. Moreover, I would like to know if it would be possible to conduct my research in wikisource either by approaching Wikisource-Editors or posting something on specific discussion pages. ”

“ Antandrus (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I doubt that I need the concepts of vandals, LTAs, global bans, nor these particular users explained to me.I also know that we don't feed trolls, and that local management of these matters are more appropriate, rather than vigilante, or Don Quixote-type charges. Every time that you are running around labelling and taking the fight to a user, is every time that LTA is getting their jollies for having you on the run, a puppet on their string. Every time you use their name, and pin a badge to them, you are feeding the troll. Don't feed the trolls. ”

“ The remaining non-admin rights user is vastly trusted user who is also a WMF employee, and has rights as they are the best at filters. I would also suggest that we ask the bureaucrats to review whether those rights are retained when they remove admin rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Question. Is there any particular reason why we don't allow non-admins access to the abusefilter-log-detail right? I feel like that is something we could easily bundle with the Abuse filter editors userright (or even Autoconfirmed/Confirmed users) . ”

“ On Wikisource, it is also much rarer to find any situation where active admins are not "involved" because we are a much smaller community than Wikipedias. Any active admin is going to be "involved" in most situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Petey, I don't see a substantive conflict with the blocking policy. Let us say that an established editor engages in disruptive behaviour, and that an administrator blocks them in accordance with the blocking policy. ”

“ Better to be professional, than to think that any of us are superheroes.All that said, we should not be rehashing global ban conversations, they have been had and should be accepted as a WMF requirement, or as the consensus of the broader community. If someone wants to rehash it, take it to meta! — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: If I started reverting non-controversial edits on Wikipedia, I would fully expect Antandrus or another WP admin to block me without discussion. ”

“ Having another technical contributor to help out there can only be for the good of the project! --Xover (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC) @Xover: looking at the user groups on this wiki: Abuse filter editors - modify, modify restricted (blocking) Admins - modify restricted (does nothing without modify, should probably be removed; restricted is only checked on save, edit is checked at the start) Basically, there is one group that can see and edit private filters, and thats it. ”

“ Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC) @Xover: yes, it is clear that the other editor (s) are not innocent here. However, without involving a checkuser, I would be very hesitant to block an account "on sight" unless the user in question is violating the blocking policy, or without clear evidence that it is a sockpuppet of a user who has violated the blocking policy. Furthermore, I think it is completely inappropriate to cite a global ban when blocking a user account, unless a checkuser has confirmed that the editor is in fact a sockpuppet of User:Projects or another globally banned user. ”

“ You have the source code already, as you said above: "I managed to recover the source for the template." You have put yourself in this position, not anyone else. You have come here accusing members of the community of being lazy, ignorant, half-competent, self-entitled, disruptive, despicable, of making character judgements, bullshit, and more. All within the past week. This says more about your reasons for being here than anything else. You have only yourself to blame. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Only recovered that as a copy and paste into my namespace. ”

“ And I would frankly be perfectly comfortable giving them editing rights too, if possibly accompanied with an admonition to not use it lightly. Very few of our filters actually take actions like blocking users (which is a separate permission in any case) or disallow edits: most of them just tag various stuff we want to track. ”

“ I am surprised and somewhat dismayed to observe that the level of hostility for those (movement) community members that have tried to help out here is greater than for the person acting in bad faith that they have tried to help out with. Regardless of whether one disagrees about the best way to handle the situation, that seems rather backwards to me. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC) @Xover: The strict enforcement of global bans WMF-placed by is a responsibility of WMF, not anyone else. ”

“ I get random "enemies" who leave these harassing comments at my user talk pages throughout the Wikimedia projects on projects I never edit, so it's better if they're protected so those users can't create those pages. Only (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC) This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) User:Abuse filter user page de-redlinked Prompted by the discussion at User talk:Mpaa#Question about User:Abuse filter I've gone ahead and created it based on the equivalent Wikidata page. ”

“ I also think the deletion of the pages in userspace was unwarranted. The pages did not fall under the speedy deletion guidelines, they were not spam/vandalism, there was no objection from User:Eaterjolly regarding the creation of the pages, and you have no evidence that IP user is not User:Eaterjolly. All of which is to say, please don't delete stuff without a discussion unless it is clear violation of policy, which this was not. Editors will learn if you educate them; they will flee if you stomp on them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) So, our IP is a vandal? ”

“ Note that I am not necessarily opposed to enabling this, but I see a lot of potential for misuse and collateral damage that is not addressed sufficiently for my peace of mind. --Xover (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply Abuse filter blocks are not new, and have been successfully used at multiple sites, and I am unaware of any abuse of filters, let alone for blocking. We have had them on at meta for +++ years. The community to be setting rules for their use is pretty easy, and the provision of blocks should always be as a last resort. ”