Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.
Wikimedia steward Icon.svg
For stewards
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]

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
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.
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 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 (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 withdraw all support for Chyah’s cause due to this hysterical rampage on Commons by one of her alternative accs. Identity Sonia_Sevilla = Chyah derives from this request (not archived apparently due to SteinsplitterBot’s bug) and q:fa:Special:Contributions/Sonia_Sevilla. But again, socking abuse is not a pretext to blatantly misuse canned global lock rationales, such as those intended for vandals and common spammers. Unsure who is Rafic.Mufid, but due to the timing of events and missing Email address “he” very likely is the same person. Have a good day. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of Userrights about Chyah and me, Rafic.Mufid[edit]

as i disscused with @Incnis Mrsi: there is a huge mistake occured on Chyah's usercheking that makes no sense, btw you are free to don't believe that, put it away. But, I would like to file a complaint about privacy violation of Chyah and myself against User:Sunfyre who is an admin on FaWiki and misuse of userrights against Sharaky who is an admin on fa.wikiquote.

About Sunfyre, Let make it local, Chyah blocked infinite in FaWiki on December 11, 2016 and i have been blocked on March 7, 2018 there under "CheckUser evidence confirms" that i am a sock of Chyah, he claimed it without no usercheking and nothing, then i asked a review, bcz my username don't seen on Chyah's socks as what EnWiki confirmed it, i cleared the reiview after a month bcz no one answered me. there is something not understanding for me: those socks of Chyah on EnWiki not blocked in Fawiki under the name of Chyah's socks, and I am not blocked on EnWiki under one of chyah's socks, but i have blocked on FaWiki as Chyah sock! What is going on here, userchecking confirmations are just for local or its global? or as i said, there is a huge mistake on Chyah's usercheking on EnWiki and I am the only sock of Chyah and those band of newcomers related to a not notable article (Mohammad Ghorbanpour) are not chyah's socks? For god's sake, someone explain for me why a user like Chyah after seven years activity should try to make socks for making a not notable article? Who can seen any spamming, trolling, or any kind of this amateur acts about Chyah. Check her Contributions and you find she was an active user doing her best, and yea, she had socks, but surely this socks related to Ghorbanpour article can be seen on EnWiki are not her socks and this led to her globall banning.
and About Sharaky , he blocked me on fa.wikiquote by same reason like Sunfyre but under "Bcz Chyah is globally banned, her sock should be banned in this Wiki too", here. Well, if she globally blocked (not true, her acctount is "Locked"), any of her socks should be blocked or Locked globally too, every sycop in every local wiki is not free to lock her sock by his own decision. I think he should make a report here and confirm it i am a sock, then i will be globally banned.
i also like to notice i receive nothing from FaWiki ppl, not even via I think there a mistake on Chyah, i said what i believe, the only way was here, Metawiki, on Wikipdias no one answers, and this is not nice and i guess at least four times Chyah and myself privacy invaded on FaWiki. I don't know how to show it. The first privacy violation on Chyah is exactly the Sunfyre's reason on blocking me, they blocked her infinite on December 11, 2016 and blocked me as her sock on March 7, 2018 (while she had no sock during this period there, and this band of Chyah's socks on EnWiki not counted as her socks on FaWiki) without any userchecking and proof, i think there is something "personal" happened there after one year and three months, i am not sure what is it exactly, but related to "personal life of a Wiki user", many times on FaWiki they said :we deal with a "real personality" not with "an account", and we trust on our feels first then on evidences. Sorry for my broken english, Thank You.--Rafic.Mufid (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
how much i should wait? i thought users are not just nicknames and there is humans behind this nicknames. who can stop this mad userchecking make no sense, who can stop FaWiki ppl about their acts against users? --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
l just logged in now, and i see an alert:There has been a failed attempt to log in your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password.Screenshot Someone plz tell me who is annoying me, and making suckpupets by using my account. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I got this one: In the past day or two there has been some sort of ongoing mass attack at en.wp. Tens of thousands of users got the same message you did. The Foundation is aware of the issue and is working to stop the attack and identify who is behind it. So, short version, it’s not targeted at you specifically. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, how about this one: User:فرهنگ2016, admin in fa.wikiq, recently said link their system (a module-like thing that made to stop trolling, and Chyah as trusted user is recognized, i don't know exactly words for this in Eng, sorry). let me say simple, the fa.wikiquote system have a module to stop trolls, admins never saw a sign that Ghorbanpour's band of socks are related to chyah, just after i started editing there, their system said: oh! there is something related to chyah and rafic.mufid. you are a userchecker, u know better, u tell me how this fa.wikiq system says i am a sock of chyah, and don't say this other socks (confirmed as chyah's socks on Enwiki, related to this ghorbanpour article) are not a chyha's sock? plz you @Incnis Mrsi: , why no body on all this wikiepdias and projects never say they had a huge mistake? User Chyah just had two sock, S.Habboush and Farzad Khorasani, all other are not her socks! this is so clear, the currently story is a joke. plz, someone help me. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
hello @Incnis Mrsi:? --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Me? Why should I conduct further investigation—from Moscow, some thousands km away and across the border—while nobody from Iranian Wikimedians User Group (or elsewhere in the region… am not actually sure about location) cares? I alerted stewards and Commons community, bad account lock reason is now in Masti’s service record – enough for one Incnis Mrsi. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, look at c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Chyah #Rationale, discussion and results and Special:CentralAuth/Rafic.Mufid. Either I miss some strong evidence or Trijnstel prompts the second Solomon203 drama. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sonia Sevilla (a.k.a. Chyah) contacted me off-wiki. She admitted socking as Rafic.Mufid (see also diff), the “second” Sonia Sevilla, and using proxies to evade the Iranian Internet censorship, but she denies ownership of any socks related to Mohammad Ghorbanpour (the same claim as her previous personae made). Such physical guy as Rafic.Mufid never existed. Unless Persian check-users provided specific data, a responsible admin should conclude that ownership of the Ghorbanpour sock farm cannot be determined reliably, as we see two clusters: Sonia/Chyah/Rafic and all the Ghorbanpour spam accounts. Certainly, cross-wiki socking is a gross abuse, but please keep your eyes open and don‘t accept Sonia identity with the spamming gang as a proven fact. Sonia had numerous foes in the Persian wiki community. Perhaps some really convincing evidence about the spammers can be mined which could shed light to this question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi mentioned a case involving nlwiki, XPanettaa, so I took a look. is either pretty stupid and obvious socking (I understand Dutch. I see the errors in spelling and grammar.) or some really smart framing. I don't know if a block is or was the right solution, but their claims in general don't seem credible at all. No native Dutch speaker (I can tell), probably no native English speaker, yet XPanettaa claims to be both. (edit: now that I think about it, they might be deaf. otherwise I can't think of any credible explanation that doesn't involve lying)
I have also looked at Chyah/Sonia/Rafic. Sonia was an unused account that was likely registered after a rename request was completed. Rafic would have probably never existed if Chyah hadn't been blocked. So these are red herrings to me. I looked into the Ghorbanpour spam socks and was not able to find any link between the Ghorbanpour spam gang and Chyah. Incnis Mrsi may share what I did find if they think it might make a difference. I'm not too familiar with how things work on meta-wiki. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


@Ajraddatz: @Bsadowski1: @Defender: @DerHexer: @Green Giant: @HakanIST: @Hoo man: @Jyothis: @Linedwell: @MarcoAurelio: @Mardetanha: @Masti: @Matanya and Matanya: @Matiia: @MBisanz: @Melos: @Mentifisto: @MF-Warburg: @NahidSultan: @Pmlineditor: @QuiteUnusual: @RadiX: @Ruslik0: @Rxy: @Shanmugamp7: @Sjoerddebruin: @Stryn: @Tegel: @Teles: @There'sNoTime: @Trijnstel: @Vituzzu: Is it fair that a constructive, new editor is blocked and then locked, and any new incarnations of them unable to edit despite this:

"..accounts that have been globally locked on charges of cross wiki disruption, spamming, or vandalism. Such users are not globally banned, per se. If they create new accounts and are not disruptive with those accounts, they will not be locked again merely because it is discovered that they were previously globally locked."

But it does not seem to matter. Users on wikipedia are falsely blocked and locked, with no appeal. And when they try to follow that policy, they are found out, blocked and then locked. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed.

But it won't be fixed. Because people are ignorant and refuse to believe that people can be different. To illustrate my point, I have been accused of being:

My Royal Young

I Love Bridges


And Iniced.

A lock has become a ban. This is not acceptable.

Do you really think that 700 constructive contribs on en.wp alone is unacceptable, and a editor who is not welcome?

"It seems like everyone is saying "If you are not contributing to article-space content, get out." That is not ok.

I know that this account will just be locked just like the other two. Because I am no longer welcome here. Please fix the system, even though I know you won't. I just want to edit constructively.

-Rufus Rose/Cæsey

Reisalice (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

All I can do is agree with this user's complaint. Stewards should be following the policies, not abusing their use of the keys to the system.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I blocked/userpage deleted this account as it appeared to be behaving blatantly disruptive and claiming to be globally locked user User:Rufus Rose. @Billinghurst: and @Incnis Mrsi:, I did use templated rationales in the logs where a more descriptive explanation would have been more useful, apologies for confusion related to that. As this account is the main party of this overall discussion, would prefer to keep a single thread open for the best way forward. If there is a useful "wrong venue" argument here, I can follow up at RFH. — xaosflux Talk 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is Rufus Rose, and before that Cæsey. That is why they were here complaining about what they perceive as the injustice of stewards' actions. They should be allowed to raise such issues in a civil manner without being blocked by Meta admins. If you stop such complaints how will the community have visibility on where stewards are acting and without apparent review. Stewards are at the top of the tree with regard to access rights and should be subject to reasonable review, it is not apparent that this is happening, nor that there is clear and open accountability.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: how can you be confident that Rufus_Rose told truth? This request didn’t produce anything visible. Note that the most recent account even can’t spell correctly a username he allegedly owned. Reisalice is likely the same as Rufus_Rose which definitely was not a wiki newbie, but this person is not necessarily Cæsey. This latter, contrary, may be a person rather new to wiki, albeit almost certainly having connections among people with years of experience. I proposed to unlock and interrogate Cæsey proper (albeit wrote it on en.Wikipedia, not Meta-wiki), but Ajraddatz dismissed the proposal. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I locked the Caesey account because it was engaged in disruptive behaviour across multiple projects, and I suspect that it was an LTA of some kind - though I agree that it is unlikely to be MRY. I opposed unlocking because it doesn't matter which master it belongs to, the account was acting disruptively across multiple wikis and that was the basis for the lock. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
What did you achieve with this lock, Ajraddatz? Without it we’d have a sock puppeteer whose master account is indeffed in two wikis. In other words, a pure block evasion on several wikis, with an imminent global lock for cross-wiki sock puppetry alone and “promotion” to a LTA status. With it we have a person who may register accounts only because was technically unable to appeal blocks. An indef-blocked account can request unblocking. A locked account can’t be used at all. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
As is the goal with any lock, preventing cross-wiki disruption. A locked user can still request unlocked by exactly the means that they (allegedly) did. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
For someone who claims to want to be on the right side of things, you sure have an interesting way of showing it. Which one of these are you going by now? Dryercotes, Hartconan, 1984_Cadillac? Chrissymad (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, now I can respond, because autoblock has been lifted.

First, I was never banned or blocked from meta, and Xaoflux's block of me reinforces my point.

Second, I was only locked on a suspicion, and I have no idea why my 2nd account was locked.

Third, I did create those accounts, and i'm sorry for that.

Forth, I have proven on the Rufus Rose account that i can edit constructively, but i still get locked. Why?

1984 Cadillac(or Cæsey) 05:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  • As this user specifically created additional accounts to bypass their lock, come here and at least mildly harass volunteers (with mass notification triggers) - that is why I blocked. If the stewards want to extend the lock to these additional accounts, the matter is pretty much over, if not: if any 2 meta admins support unblocking (looks like @Billinghurst: is advocating for an unblock) I'll reverse without further ado. Please ping me if you are the second admin supporting unblock. — xaosflux Talk 12:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cæsey: if you intend on productively contributing then I'm happy to unlock your account, and have done so. Note that it will not remove any of your local blocks anywhere. I would recommend that you stop making new accounts, and just edit from the Cæsey one. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Cæs tc 19:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

AAR -[edit]

0000We received this notification [2] about the global policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" on Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. We were also asked to notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki that if we ( as a community would like to create our own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that stewards missed.
0000We already (six months ago) made a decision about the removal of advanced rights of the certain users. That's our policy. The stewards haven't implemented our community decision for six months. What are You waiting for?
0000Recently we are deciding on the case-by-case basis, in order to avoid the gaming of the system (few edits every few years and then disappear and so on for decades), and also, to make sure that removal of the advanced rights is solely the result of our local decision, decision of our local community. Kubura (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kubura: If your community has not complied with the policy, that may be your community's issue rather than everyone else's. The policy clearly states where communities are to add exclusions ... Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies with a statement about the local process. I would recommend adding a permalink to the summary. I would then suggest leaving a note at AAR17 asking them to remove the checks for 2018.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
0000Soon we are about to start the community discussion and voting about this particular user. Kubura (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Global bans[edit]

Closing in on 150,000 edits, I do not think that I have anything to be ashamed of.

I draw your attention to en:MediaWiki talk:Autoblock whitelist#Collateral damage. About 10 days ago, I, an experienced editor, was twice hit within two days with a global ban because some fool vandal was on my IP. I could not even edit my own Talk Page. It took me 9 hours and 5 (6?) emails to get those silly blocks lifted. I was fortunate enough to know some other experienced editors, and to be able to email them. One, an admin, did part of the job. Another, not an admin, pointed me at UTRS See en:User talk:Narky Blert#How about now?

I emailed User:Tegel, who issued the first block, on or about 20 May. I have still had no response.

I cannot email User:Vituzzu, who issued the second block. That editor's email is closed.

OK, so I, with considerable thought and effort, managed to get my bans lifted. What about those honest editors who may have been driven away for ever by such indiscriminate unappealable bans?

Imagine that you are an ordinary, decent, willing, inexperienced user who has just been landed with a global IP ban. Do you (1) jump through difficult-to-find hoops to get it lifted?, or (2) give up on Wikipedia for good? Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: terminology first, you were neither not locked nor banned, best guess is a temporary hard IP block.

There are plentiful avenues to address blocks, and the community would appreciate a cooperative approach to better solutions rather than just complaints. All volunteers here, all doing their best. They understand that you have been inconvenienced and it is unfortunate.

If we are facing xwiki abuse, then we manage it as best we can. There is no simple ability to understand all the consequences of all blocks, though all stewards will try their best. So please start again. Note that your link above is irrelevant to any circumstances that you relate. You may also be interested in IPBE if you are a crosswiki editor, or you can apply for that at enWP if you solely edit there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC) (observer only, not involved in the rigmarole)

Eh? terminology first? the message I got (in multiple languages) was:
Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.
with, as I have previously said, no means of appeal.
I managed, eventually, to find a way around the unjust blocks with which I had been landed. I am posting here because other less experienced editors may have been caught up in this nonsense and might not know how to do so. I suggest that you sort this problem out, for the good of the project.
"There are plentiful avenues to address blocks"
Name them then, for ordinary editors such as myself. They are not obvious. Especially if you cannot post {{unblock}} on your own Talk Page. Narky Blert (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note, after this we did change the default message on enwiki to have a link to the meta page (w:en:MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked-range) but for other projects, the message is not very clear about how someone may best deal with this. — xaosflux Talk 12:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    Blaming stewards is not reasonable for the existing Mediawiki design and implementation, they just work with the tools. the whole community has allowed this to evolve in this manner. It is not reasonable to expect stewards to do add that at every WMF wiki.

    Sounds like a general Wikimedia issue where the answer lies with a globally implemented Wikimedia-specific implementation of that message. Probably worth putting in a bug report against mw:Extension:GlobalBlocking to see if there is the ability to enable a WMF specific implementation of that message that can be managed through as some sort of fallback message where a local custom is not implemented.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Добрый день, уважаемые стюарды проектов Фонда! Заметил, что вы начала уведомлять администраторов и бюрократов русского Викицитатника о малой активности по глобальным правилам. Уведомляю вас, что сообществом был найден консенсус по локальным правилам: Неактивные Администраторы ВЦ, итог к сожалению подвести забыли, как и зафиксировать сам консенсус; однако, он есть. OlegCinema (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I don't speak Russian. I guess you are speaking of my AAR notification. You can update your wiki's inactivity admin policy status at Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies, and we will skip your wiki in the future, making you responsible for handling it. — regards, Revi 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much. We will discuss with the participants the final local rules of inactivity, and, if possible, will you help me to do all the necessary operations to fix the consensus? OlegCinema (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, just let us know when you're done discussing as a community. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)