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.
Meta-Wiki Steward.svg
For stewards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

Stewards' use of global lock rather than community bans[edit]

Again the stewards appear to be using a global lock as a means of control that seems outside of the criteria described for global locks. It is not stewards' task to circumvent each community's ability to manage their users as they seem fit, nor to prevent users of standing from editing in a way that they believe is an inconvenience to them, or someone is causing a bit of a problem. Stewards have not been elected to put in place false global blocks, and they should refrain from taking on that role unless someone is clearly a crosswiki vandal or has been banned by one of the two existing processes.

So I ask those stewards who have put in place locks recently to review their actions, to civilly deal with those matters, and if they believe that a global block is required, then utilise the process for a ban. These wikis need to act on consensus, not with authoritarian actions, no matter how pissed off you may be with someone else's actions. I ask stewards to collectively discuss matter and reach some consensus on the use of locks and global blocks, and put that forward to the broader wiki community. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You have some specific case(s) in mind? Ruslik (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I think they are referring to the INeverCry case. I saw some stewards locking INC's socks due to being INC. If this case is what billinghurst is referring to, then I would agree with billinghurst. Currently, INC's interest is only to sock and troll Commons and enwiki, which is not cross-wiki. Unless they suddenly troll lots of other wikis as well, the two communities can handle the case by their own. If they want to globally lock the socks, then make a global community ban, or wait the WMF to make the ban themselves (or both). Poyekhali (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik0, this sort of thing has been discussed previously, and you and at least one other steward are heavy-handed in use of lock on users on the borderline. It is should not initially be up to the community to hold each steward accountable for the use of the lock, the steward community should be doing so, and I would hope that borderline cases have been discussed privately rather than unilaterally undertaken. If the steward community isn't undertaking their review, then the community should be here to remind you. Such a reminder can be done generally and allow for a review of actions; or we can publicly point to specific cases and cause an argument. I would hope for the stewards to be able to privately review and discuss their alignment of actions with policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see this as a steward-enforced community ban since both the "master" accounts remain unlocked. It has been standard practice to lock sock accounts while leaving the master unlocked in cases like this. --Rschen7754 16:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that socks accounts created for pure disruption can be locked. However currently there is no intention to lock the main account of INC. Ruslik (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about INC's case.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Which case are you referring to then? --MF-W 14:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Preclude Cekli829 from running in some future steward elections[edit]

There is no consensus for this proposal; could a steward close this? --Rschen7754 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 14:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Prerequisites for an unlock[edit]

I have familiarised myself with all the rules and guidelines and do not ever plan on abusing multiple accounts of disrespecting any other contributor in the future, I have thoroughly studied all guidelines of conduct and do not intent on breaking any wikiquette ever again. I request that you unlock my account as I pose no harm to any project anymore nor am I planning such. If you would unlock my account I would remain blocked on various projects and will request unblocks on the terms and conditions of those respective communities in due time but will like the chance to contribute positively to other projects such as the Dutch Wikipedia to showcase that in fact I am not here to disrupt and regain the trust of the communities of where I am presently excluded.

If there are any concerns or prerequisites I would like to hear them so I can address them, thank you for your time.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --2405:4800:148C:AAB1:940A:4502:A5EF:39CF 08:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC) (Donald Trung)

On what grounds is this user locked? Please describe how this user fits under the guidance of global locks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
They're locked for crosswiki abuse, including the impersonation of an enwiki admin and the creation of accounts with usernames attacking another user. Since their block and lock, they've been incessantly canvassing for unblocking/unlocking across multiple venues, including user talk pages on multiple projects, numerous emails to enwiki ArbCom, enwiki UTRS, this page and elsewhere. —DoRD talk 14:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@DoRD: that request should have been ruled out of order and should have been rejected. Global lock use is defined and should not be subverted. A user's behaviour on enWP should be managed by enWP, not by stewards. Where has there been a conversation at meta explaining to the user that their behaviour is unacceptable and the consequences of that? The correct methodology is not a lock on all accounts, it is locks on socks, and leaving the primary account where person has standing in a community, eg. nlWP. It is not the stewards role to block someone from contributing in their community. This is a long established process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
As a former steward, I'm sure that you're more familiar with the proper application of locks than I am, but this seems to me to fall under Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock (emphasis mine). If I'm mistaken, please explain so that it can be avoided in the future. Thanks —DoRD talk 14:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Which was not all the accounts. Leave the primary, lock the others. Engage in natural justice with the primary account, and firmly inform them of the consequences of future action. It is not meant to be an execution AND it is not meant to be a means to exclude someone from useful contributions, that is the global ban process which exists for the specific person of seeing off a user.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
And as a former steward, I would disagree, and I suspect a lot of current stewards would as well. This was never an established user anywhere, and some of the accounts were disruptive. The lock tool prevents further disruption by the unlocked accounts. --Rschen7754 18:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
My argument and issue is not been about locking the socks (and how many times do I need to express that?), it is about how the primary account has been locked without natural justice; and letting the communities manage their affairs. The primary account simply does not need to be locked and this is punishment not prevention. Lock the account and throw away the key. And I am comfortable with you expressing your opinion, it is totally presumptive and inappropriate to talk for current stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Believe me, I really don't want ro be bothering anyone, if I am not allowed on talk pages then I shall refrain from that, I just wish that there was a "Guide to appealing locks", I have no intent on returning to the enwiki any time soon, preferably I would like to spend my time on the nlwiki if I were to get unlocked, in fact I barely have any immediate plans to expand any enwiki article but I've drafted several nlwiki articles. I didn't know that adopting similar usernames fell under impersonation and I should've probably read the username guidelines first. I admit my mistake and there is no chance of it repeating in the future. --2405:4800:148C:AAB1:811B:7305:E235:9FEC 14:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
And the only reason I "spammed" the stewards' talk pages before was because I had no idea that this noticeboard existed. --2405:4800:148C:AAB1:811B:7305:E235:9FEC 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trung, just learn to be quiet for a period of time. This will take some discussion, and you need to realise that your verbal diarrhoea is problematic. More listening, less talking!  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
At the time my global lock was requested none of the “small wiki” accounts I had made edited in around 2 weeks so at the time of the request there was no continued crosswiki issue. A lock at that point would be purely punitive and wouldn't prevent any further disruptions.
As for the claim that I’m not an established user anywhere, in the span of one month (the same amount of time that I’ve been currently locked out of my account) I had made 10 articles such as w:en:Ryukyuan mon, w:en:Nagasaki trade coins and on Dutch Wikipedia w:nl:Chinese kèpèngs, while also significantly expanding numerous articles. In fact since my lock I have completed the drafts of several new nlwiki articles that I can’t publish because of it, global locks should only be implemented to prevent disruptions, not to prevent the building of an encyclopedia. I have never been blocked at the nlwiki and if unlocked would rather spend my time on creating and expanding articles there than wasting my time on appeals here.
And at Dutch Wikipedia I also clearly stated in their “village pump” that my phone signs me out causing me to edit as a dynamic IP and that I would usually be the Vietnamese IP editing those articles.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. -- 00:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC) (Don Trung)

New Creations on mgwiki[edit]

Over the past couple of days, there have been various IPs such as mg:Manokana:Fandraisan'anjara/2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:7F and mg:Manokana:Fandraisan'anjara/ who have been flooding the CVN channel with creation of pages related to dates. These edits are made within seconds of each other and contain the same amount of bytes. This could indicate a possible bot editor, which is certainly odd for an anonymous user. It's hard to navigate around them, checking the other edits that the CVN bot provides. What action should be taken? eurodyne (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Less of a stewards issue and more of a global admins. Issue. It does seem to be bulk creation of year articles, and it does look to be bot orientated. Let's see if we can get the attention of the contributor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
7k pages created, definitely bot, operating over a number of ranges, and several IPs. I have put in place some blocks, done some deletions, and pointed them to my meta user talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)