User talk:QTE-Test22-WMF

September 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

QTE-Test22-WMF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm on the QTE Team working with the Web Team. I use this account only to test patches in Production wikis. I have a number of them, all with the EdTestCommonsXX format. I don't make permanent edits on any wiki articles, except for maybe testwiki. EdTestCommons02 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

per below. Please create a user page on Meta explaining the use of this, and any other, account. Thank you — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You came up in a checkuser of ABorba (WMF), who is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Has he ever had access to this account? Further, which WMF staff member owns this account? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My full name is Edward Tadros. I'm the only one with access to this account and all of the other variations. ABorba is also on the QTE team and was assisting me a few weeks back with testing. Not sure if that would have caused this to come up on your radar.EdTestCommons02 (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rechecking the CU data, that makes sense. meta:Special:CentralAuth/ETadros_(WMF) shows that your staff account is globally locked due to you not working at the foundation. Is this incorrect? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still with the foundation (as a contractor). I have to check to see why it says I'm not. I'm also not sure about the (WMF) part of the username. I vaguely recall there being some confusion around my username as a contractor. I will get back to you here. EdTestCommons02 (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, not sure if this is the correct way/place to do this. My name is Jean-Rene Branaa (jbranaa (WMF)) and I am the manager of the QTE (Quality and Test Engineering). Both Edward and Anthony are on my team and have been blocked for their testing activities. I've confirmed that the activity in question was legitimate and not from a compromised account. Please let me know what I need to do to have their accounts reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBranaa (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBranaa (WMF): Looks like an incredible lack of communication from the WMF. Be that as it may, Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 5#ABorba (WMF) blocked may be of interst. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra, appearances are deceiving :-) Needless to say, these events have made me aware of policies and the potentially disruptive impacts of our testing in production. We are a relatively new and growing team and will take what we learn from this and make improvements to our processes. Kind regards. JBranaa (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBranaa (WMF), any testing activity would need to conform to the policy WP:NOTLAB. In short, test edits of a controversial nature (for example, vandalism tests) are not allowed unless they have been proposed at WP:VPR and found to be acceptable. Additionally, any accounts involved in such tests should have full disclosure about their activities on their user pages. —Kusma (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except these aren't researchers doing research about Wikipedia's content, processes, and the people involved, they're employees of the Foundation who build the software you use and maintain the servers it runs on — NOTLAB therefore doesn't apply. This is starting to get a little out of hand now, and seems to just be a witch hunt. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: I'd be happy to unblock, because the root cause is not something I can fix, but you remember what happened to the last admin to undo a CU block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done it — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bless your heart. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference between "research" and "testing" is splitting hairs, and I don't see the identity of the employer as all that relevant -- everybody who edits must abide by our policies. As the account here has not edited, it is fine to unblock it, but if they want to make any test edits without being blocked, they need to declare very openly what they are doing and why. —Kusma (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my unblock condition

(don't get me wrong, doing testing without a user page is asking for issues and should not have happened — it takes seconds to add a global user page message detailing what the account is for and which employee to contact if there are any problems) — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBranaa (WMF) let me suggest an additional thing which might help. While I haven't looked at the CU data, I'm assuming part of the problem is that EdTestCommons02 and ABorba (WMF) showed up on the same IP address in a CU check. If you mail User:Arbitration Committee the IP addresses in question, they will record these. That's a technique that's usually used when two or more people living in the same residence are both active on wikipedia, but it would be useful here too, as a heads up that CUs can expect to see lots of false positives on those IPs. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @RoySmith. This did strike us as strange because the users in question are not co-located nor do they share accounts. This is something that we plan to look into more closely. JBranaa (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]