Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Stewards Stewards' noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the stewards' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.
  • This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
Stewards
Meta-Wiki Steward.svg
Requests
For stewards
Noticeboards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Wrongful global lock of Chyah[edit]

Hello.
First of all, the rationale stated by Masti is blatantly invalid. Second, this account should be considered an established Wikimedia account and may be alienated only through a global ban motion, by either community or Office. Some sock puppetry in English and Farsi wikipedias is not a sufficient ground to lock the main account without any kind of discussion. One steward may not decide such a case unilaterally. Compare this case to another one, also from 2017:

account Chyah XPanettaa
contri-
butions
39 ke fa.Wikiquote, 34 ke fa.Wikipedia, 3 ke ar.Wikipedia,

> 10,000 uploads to Commons, some deleted.

7 ke en.Wikipedia, 503 e nl.Wikipedia,

∼ 290 uploads to Commons, many deleted.

offences Sock puppetry in English and Farsi wikipedias. Indefblocked in en.Wikipedia and Commons for copyvio, and in nl.Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Two IP socks on Commons.
global
actions
Out-of-process global lock, no notifications to communities affected (such as Commons). Request for global ban.
result Locked. No consensus for the ban, account active.

So, I propose the following remedy:

  1. We inform relevant communities (fa.Wikipedia first and foremost) that Chyah may be either globally banned or not globally banned, and may not be just “locked” like a vandal or a common spammer.
  2. If no global ban request came in one week, then the global lock is to be lifted.
  3. In case of such a request, the lock remains in place pending results of the discussion.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If we look at [1], the rationale is actually valid: they are using multiple accounts to promote their own concept, which is cross-wiki spam. --Rschen7754 18:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
First of all, “spam-only” may be legitimately used to refer to somebody like Fouadadan (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log), not Chyah. Second, why should I look at action=history? We must look at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q30559585&action=history&offset=20171121&limit=318 to assess situation existing at the moment of global lock. How many proven accounts of Chyah do we see there? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I’ve never heard of the concept “established wikipedian may be locked only by ban”, where is it documented? AFAIK there’s no such requirement. — regards, Revi 08:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@-revi: it is documented in Global locks:
It is generally applied to vandalism-only accounts, spam-only accounts, long-term abuser sock accounts, compromised accounts, and though in rare cases users who would be eligible for a global block are locked in this way as well, issues such as like cross-wiki abuse.

the Wikimedia community,Global locks.

The “rare cases” clause indicates that such “like cross-wiki abuse” might be something more severe than few (four or five) accounts trying to push an article into Wikipedia. Let Wikipedia defend its integrity with site bans, indeed, I do not advocate pushing non-notable biographies into sites having notability policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the global locks page is not a policy but a documentation of practice. There is no community-approved policy on locking accounts. And this is indeed one of the "rare cases" where the user would be globally blocked if such a function existed. Whenever an account with good edits is locked, it's a balance between recognizing the previous good but also preventing current abuse. If an account is actively engaging in abusive behaviour across multiple wikis, it may be locked. Such is the case here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: “abusive behaviour” of Chyah was a mild sock puppetry in two wikis. It is not about the account itself, it is about the person. The person committing such acts may or may not be banned—depending on the community opinion—but again, for the master Chyah account we see very few abuse, let alone an amount sufficient for global locking without any discussion. For wikipedias other than en. and fa. an abusive use of multiple accounts is not obvious at all (although is plausible). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
But the account was not locked for the multiple account abuse, according to the summary. It was for the spam. --Rschen7754 00:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: and where do you see amount of advertising, CoI or anything close to spam comparable to overall contributions of the account? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment On 8 December 2017, I wrote a record about Chyah socks on ar.wiki (Any CU can take a look at Special:PermaLink/24857 on CU wiki). Also note that Rafic.Mufid account is confirmed as sock for Chyah as wrote in blocked column, also as you see there's a link between Chyah and Sonia Sevilla account (as wrote on Rafic.Mufid centralauth), so? --Alaa :)..! 18:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    … so we see that Persian Wikimedians have a grudge against Chyah. Otherwise is would be unconceivable to use Sonia_Sevilla with her one edit at a user_talk—looking more as a child’s rather than a sock’s—as a pretext to repress Chyah. This incident demonstrates hounding even more clearly than Masti’s global lock. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Sometimes such locks happen although we can consider reasonable conditions for unlock. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    IMHO the only “reasonable condition” may be a public RfC to establish facts, chronology of actions by both feuding parties, and extent of Chyah’s abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the only reasonable condition will be for Chyah to stop creating any socks at all. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: this approach can’t lead to anything. The global lock prevents Chyah even from reading MediaWiki notifications. And again, wiki communities are for some extent self-governed, and I do not want administration of fa.Wikiquote or fa.Wikipedia, or even en.Wikipedia to send instructions to rob contributors to Wikimedia Commons of their accounts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
This approach will lead to either Chyah unlocked on the conditions that I specified above or the lock becoming permanent. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I might miss something, but when the acc is locked it isn’t possible even extract a promise (to abstain from certain things in the future) with reasonable certainty about the origin. Special:EmailUser/Chyah is not an option (even were it possible, some caveats preclude reliable verification of identity), hence how can one now contact Chyah at all? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
OTRS exists for this purpose. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Unable to comprehend what is Ruslik0 speaking about. OTRS or any other off-wiki communication are of little use, obviously – with the account completely disabled there is no way to confirm identity, to tell the genuine Chyah from an impostor. We may not be count on her possible personal acquittance because they—if such Wikimedians exist at all—are likely from the same community whose reaction I deem disproportionate and undue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment First this account is locked, not banned, do not mistake the two for same thing, second, the two comparison which you just made is for different purpose entirely. Shockpuppeting for spamming is different than "just shockpuppeting". I do not encourage this "bot-like" behavior. The thing that person may and could do is, first, admit this mistake, second send request to OTRS.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment What is my relation to this topic? in Persian wikipedia and wikiquote i banned because of Chyah. I blocked there without any proven reason, if you gonna blocking me global, tell me now. I am an active user, its more better to tell me now, not when i am in middle of editing/uploading. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Chyah's back with more socks - c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Chyah - Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to file a privacy violation against User:DoRD, who is an admin/OS/CU on English Wikipedia.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please take the complaint to the Ombudsman Commission. Green Giant (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to file a complaint with respect to privacy violation against User:DoRD. A few days ago, I received a call and letter from my service provider Verizon. In the letter, Verizon legal team claimed that a person, claiming to be a "functionary" on the English Wikipedia, had contacted them about me. They said I have horrendously abused the services of Verizon to commit long term edits in vandalism, hoaxes, and disruptive behavior, costing them numerous hours to verify. Verizon's response said I have nothing to worry about and will ignore this request.

I also received messages on social media from a Travis claiming to be an established user. He said I should stop ediitng and move on with my life. If I didn't, I would be a fool. Presumably, it is t he same person since the RFA of the person is TravisTX, his account. I also am unable to continue writing more since an abuse filter stopped me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.128.150.14 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018

Except for my former username, none of this is true, of course, but the Ombudsman commission is the place to file a complaint if you must. Cheers —DoRD talk 17:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — regards, Revi 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Global lock[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The matter is being considered on German Wikipedia, which is a more appropriate venue for discussion, because tha is the wiki the user wants to edit on. Green Giant (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I am user:Drüfft. Despite working in the German Wikipedia since 2015, I got locked globally by user:Green Giant because I moved an article. I had no choice of defending myself. At first, I apologize for that maybe thoughtlessly move, and for the inconveniences it caused. The problem is as follows: The bridge got renamed in 2016, and the English, German and Turkish wikipedias already use the official name. I only renamed it to the official name in the other wikipedias, there was no bad intention (this isn't vandalism because it is its actual name, or even vandalism which deserves a global lock). The sockpuppet investigation in the English wikipedia is several years old now, but I edit in the German Wikipedia without major problems since then and don't use any sockpuppets. In the German Wikipedia they know about my history, and the checkuser from then, too. It is also not fair locking me globally for things I did more than two years ago, because since then, I don't use several accounts. You can lock any other account related to me which aren't already locked. I neither need them nor use them. Could you unlock me in the English wikipedia and globally if I promise not to move that page? The lock is several years old and I don't use sockpuppets anymore. It would be nice if I had at least access to my watchlist. I created more than Thousand articles over the time.

As steward Green Giant said it on his talkpage, he is ready to unlock me if the German wikipedia administrators are agreeing with it. @Man77, Otberg, and Koenraad: (he is Administrator in the German Wikipedia) said that you can unlock me, see at Von mir aus kann ein Admin dich entsperren. --2003:C3:33E6:B418:18F3:2B10:1B77:7896 19:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As your last lines could be misunderstood: I did not say you should be unlocked, and Koenraad is much rather indifferent about your account than ready to unlock you. → «« Man77 »» [de] 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, it is a case of parole violation? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi and Green Giant: I don't think it is parole violation because those edits were formally correct as I explained above.--2003:C3:33E6:B449:91DC:151D:2CF3:A963 10:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... I had thought you might put forward an honest case but it seems you continue to present only the problems you want to show. The account lock isn't just about the bridge but it is about the wider difficulty you have in editing without causing disruption.
  • The sockpuppet investigation was just two years ago, not several years ago;
  • You are currently blocked on four wikis:
You have also been blocked four times in the last six months on German Wikipedia, and Goelia is blocked on three wikis - that is a major problem in anyone's book. Drüfft/Goelia, you are clearly incapable of being honest with us. Green Giant (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
"Several years" and "major problems" are relatively sentences which I only used to defend and justify myself. Calling the use of it "dishonesty" is as unfair as counting every single mistake which I did. So @Green Giant: tell me: What shall I do then in order to gain your trust?---89.204.135.11 08:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
So you don’t think it’s a problem for the wider Wikimedia community that you have got yourself blocked on four wikis and have been blocked several times on a fifth wiki? It is the trust of the wikis you need to regain, not my trust. If any of these wikis, you are blocked on, speaks up on your behalf, then we can move towards unlocking your account. You’ve tried with German Wikipedia, but you misrepresented an administrators words (indifference is not support). 09:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Man77: "Von mir aus kann ein Admin dich entsperren." means: "From my side, an Admin can unlock you". This is not a misinterpretation. @Green Giant: Otherwise, it is an impossible task. Most Admins don't even react. What shall he say instead? Shall he beg for an unlock?--2003:C3:33E6:B468:7C64:BB87:3034:A922 14:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
As a bystander, the user in the locked account should shove off for a while, learning that if you repeatedly abuse the trust of the community that there are consequences. If the consequences are not liked, then maybe the user should learn a bit quicker about abuse of trust. Being locked is problematic, though this is a clear case where the next step would be a community ban, and that would mean every time blocked on sight. So tell the user to come back in a year and have a more amenable approach to working in a community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I’ve tried my best to explain to you but you don’t seem to understand. As suggested above by User:billinghurst, go do something else for a year and think about why you have been blocked by so many wikis and subsequently locked. This time next year, if you want to edit constructively, come back and ask for the lock to be lifted. If you do edit using another account during this year, I’ll have no choice but to lock that account and refuse to unlock any of your accounts. Green Giant (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — regards, Revi 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of Userrights at Hindi Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Our responsibility according to the Stewards page is "responsibility for technical implementation of community consensus and for dealing with emergencies such as cross-project vandalism." None of this includes arbitrating on user conduct. There is no global arbitration committee, and we (Stewards) are not a de-facto global arbitration committee. Here is not a correct place to present your issues. — regards, Revi 07:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Stewards, There are some userrights misusing at hi.wikipedia . On 13:51, 25 March 2018, User:हिंदुस्थान वासी has blocked me for 2 hours.

13:51, 25 मार्च 2018 हिंदुस्थान वासी (चर्चा | योगदान) ने Jayprakash12345 (चर्चा | योगदान) को २ घंटे के लिए अवरोधित कर दिया। (खाता निर्माण पर रोक) (उत्पातपूर्ण गतिविधियाँ)

[2]

Why Block[edit]

User:हिंदुस्थान वासी was redirecting Old page (Created in 2008) to New Page (Created in 2012). I noticed that And as Patroller I reverted User:हिंदुस्थान वासी's edit. He reverted my edit. In this edit war, We both made 3-3 edits. So how is this right redirect old page to the new one? I told him to wait for someone else. But he did not.

Misusing of userrights[edit]

In every edit war, I assume both users has the equaliy fault. Edit war is another matter. Here the matter is misusing User Rights. I would like to tell you some local established policy.

  • Accouding to Blocy Policy, "विशेषाधिकार रखने वाले सदस्यों को कम से कम ३ बार चेतावनी अवश्य दें" means the user who have special rights on hi.wiki, can't be blocked until he exceeds 3 warning. User:हिंदुस्थान वासी violate this policy. He did not give any warning to me.
  • Accouding to Misusing of userrights and Sysop tools, "जहा आप खुद ऐसे वार्तालाप या शिकायत का हिस्सा हो।" means If you are involved yourself in any Matter then you can't take action on those matters, you have to wait for another sysop to take actions. But this sysop blocked me. where he involved himself.
You can see clearly that sysop misuse his rights for their own favour. All active sysop Condemned this actions
  1. Sysop User:Anamdas ([3])
  2. Sysop User:संजीव कुमार ([4])
  3. Sysop User:अजीत कुमार तिवारी ([5])
  4. Sysop User:अनिरुद्ध! ([6])
अजीत कुमार तिवारी and अनिरुद्ध! Sugesst for block 2-24 hours on हिंदुस्थान वासी due to misuse of user rights. But hi.wiki did not have crat. So action on locally can't be proceed. This is not first for hi.wiki. See Requests for comment/Userrights on Hindi Wikipedia, Last time all the Stewards were came together to stop hi.wiki sysop and crats. Now Second time has come.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 16:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Note for Stewards - This user is a very immature person. He also open discussion on User:संजीव कुमार last year for trivial reason. He takes all things on personal level. He behave like a spoiled child. If he doesn't get his way he start throwing tantrums all round. So I request to not take this user seriously. I will respond to this later when I get more time and show you more proofs.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 16:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Hindust@ni Are you sure? You followed Blocy Policy and Misusing of userrights and Sysop tools. And here you want to say You blocked me for past behaviuor with User:संजीव कुमार. First, read the Topic name, Here is the discussion about your wrong decision.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Your English is very weak. I'm afraid I didn't said what you are understanding. I will talk to you in Hindi when required.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Closing discussion. Hindi Wikipedia is able to manage their own circumstances, and it is not within the scope of stewards to intervene on the case of a block. Please address your issues through hiWP resolution processes.— billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
billinghurst Here case is not about block. The matter is violation of established policy. And more about harassment. We have not crat who can block him for 2-24 hours.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 00:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jayprakash12345: Bureaucrats have no special ability to block (see hi:Special:ListGroupRights), that is the domain of administrators. Issues for the management of hiWP belong at hiWP, they are a self-managing wiki; so violations of their local policy is theirs to manage. There is nothing for stewards to do unless hiWP has a community consensus that requires stewards to act to remove or give rights. You misunderstand the role of stewards, they do not have an interventionist role.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Then there is no group of peoples who looks upon harassment. You can see even here Hindust@ni is doing personal attack on me see He is using spoiled child like word.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 05:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with you that the words of the user were uncomplimentary and appear unnecessary. That said, it doesn't change the fact that this has to be resolved at hiWP. Stewards have a certain role, that role is not to manage local wikis, nor to try to arbitrate local wiki issues. Please take your matter to hiWP for resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — regards, Revi 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WMDE Technical Wishes/Rollback/Feedback round[edit]

A significant change to the rollback function is being discussed above. --Rschen7754 05:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)