Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2011-01

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Request to undelete

Please undo all deletions made within the scope of the following log: [1]. Thank you so very much. Vapmachado 00:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Background

Unaware of the essay published in August, 2007, a RfC was open, in late July of 2010, on what is public or non-public personal information. The RfC was announced on the Oversight talk page. There are comments on the RfC talk page and "an anonymized, yet exact copy of the user subpage on pt.wiki to make the discussion possible." There was also a questioning of the use of Oversight, on it's own talk page, about "Removing private information, that users published themselves?" The RfC was closed Sept. 19, as announced on Meta:Babel. Vapmachado 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

complaint against steward User:Mardetanha

hi. I have complaint against one of stewards who had personal attack on me in one of wikipedias. I want to solve it in metawiki because he block all ways for solve with his power. how and where I could have description about this problem? please guide me.--Namus 10:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You can write it here if you want. You just need to provide more information... Laaknor 10:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • ok. thanks for help. in fa.wiki I had contribution on mottaki article. this edit had notable and reliable source and be about important fringe of dismissaling the previous Iranian Minister of Foreign. after this edit the steward revert all my edit with undo without any Discussion in my talk page or article talk page at two time. after second insert of subject from me, he write a threat in my talk page and threaten me to blocking! after it I asked him discuss about problem for solving it in my talk page, but he didn`t give any answer to my request. after about 12hour I think he haven`t any reliable reason for his revert and insert the subject again. after about 4:30hour that anyone in fa.wiki didn`t opposite to my insert, he cleaned the subject again and blocked me for a day and done his threat. after it I wrote my protest about blocking in my talk page and said he was himself involved sysop in edit reverting and must not block me. also he revert the edit with reliable source that anyone didn`t revert it else him in about 20houre and I think it`s a vandalism. after it I inserted the Template:Unblock in my talk page and asked from other sysops for solving this illegal blocking. after using this template he blocked me infinity and block my talk page editing for preventing unblocking me! he said the reason for baning me is using other username that is named "truth seeker" that I never know who is he. after it I think he is a vandal sysop and wrote my complaint to other sysops in fa.wiki by email for judge, but unfortunately one of them said me he is steward and have infinity power from metawiki and they couldn`t solve my problem! in this manner I discovered he have this method in fa.wiki for censoring the topic that he doesn`t like it and used this method for POV pushing like this censorship in other article. or on that article another perfect user insert my edition in article again completely and this stewards also blocked him too! there is a question that if my edit had problem why the another perfect user insert it again and why this steward censor it and blocked this user too? now I want to know that metawiki give censor power to some of stewards? and steward could do any illegal actions in wikies? and please judge complaint about this personal infinity blocking that could be a worst personal attack from one steward to a user. thanks for your attention. --Namus 12:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocking users is a right every administrator has, and is not related to steward-rights, which Mardetanha can't use on fawiki. All actions on fawiki is related to his adminrights or his bureaucratrights (which really isn't a part of this discussion, since they are only the right to promote administrators and to rename users). Blocking users should be according to a local policy, and after what I can see of the blockreason (abusing multiple accounts), an indef-block is normal procedure.
I see no reason for stewards to overrule (which we aren't allowed to anyway) local actions in this case, and according to checkuser history, fawiki has had problems with multiple accounts from you before (the fact that you write on meta with yet another username than the one that was blocked on fawiki just looks even worse for you when the reason for the local block is abusing multiple accounts). Welcoming other stewards input in this case, but I suspect they will agree with me that this is a local case, and should be handled locally on fawiki. Laaknor 13:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thanks. the local policy in fa.wiki say`s the admins couldn`t block the users who have edit war with themselves. and another admin must judge and block if it be necessary.
and about multiple account I didn`t understand your purpose. you think I`m "truth seeker" ?! I said I have no relationship with her/him and you could checkuser me now! in very low percentage maybe my ip be similar to others because in iran we have common ip but I`m sure that I`m not "truth seeker"! so I want to see the log or confirmation of the checkuser that User:Mardetanha blocked my account on fa.wiki and have citation on "‏ (سوء استفاده از چند حساب کاربری: truth seeker)" and show it to you or other stewards. although after his election in 2009 he`s banned from checkuser for fa.wiki users for saving the users security from dangars. if it`s correct, why he checkusered one user in fa.wiki and if not why he blocked me infinity without citationable reason? I think two of them are illegal and must judged with other stewards or Arbitration Committee in meta wiki. now he added Sock puppetry template to my userpage in fa.wiki and have Insistence on that I`m "truth seeker" for cheating others from my illegal blocking.--Namus 14:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You where checkusered on meta by me, since the reason for the block was abusive sockpuppets, and I can confirm that you match truth seekers known permanent record, not only by ISP but also other proofs. Mardetanha has not performed a checkuser on fawiki, since he doesn't have that right locally, but he can block you with the ducktest. You have also confirmed you have a long Wikipedia-history in by what you have written in your complaint, so I can say that I would also block you on the ducktest, without checkusering. If you where blocked for editwarring, I would agree with you that an impartial admin should do the blocking, but you where blocked for sockpuppets abuse, and not for editwarring, so that doesn't apply.
I don't think arguing about this here will help your case; you need to resolve this on fawiki, and you won't help your case by spreading the discussion. More arguing about it here (where the discussion doesn't belong) will probably just make you blocked here too. Laaknor 14:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
dear steward! I didn`t know anything about ducktest but now I know it`s only a essay and I think couldn`t cititionable for blocking the user who have edit war with any admin, specially infinity.
yes I have experiance in wiki editing but it couldn`t proof that I`m "truth seeker"! with privacy policies I couldn`t say my old username but I could swear that isn`t "truth seeker" and anyone related him. realy who is "truth seeker" and why many users must be blocked for simillary to him/her? you didn`t think he could block all enemies or anyone who have edit war with him with this ducky test reason? you didn`t think after it we should change fa.wiki name to mardetanha.wiki? --Namus 15:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Laaknor. Mardetanha has done nothing else than executing the normal fa:wiki procedure regarding abusing multiple accounts. He has done so as a local admin and not as a steward, therefore this discussion (if this is something to be discussed at all) belongs on fa:wiki and not on Meta. Wutsje 14:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
hi. I think it`s related to meta because the other admins in fa.wiki couldn`t have violation on his dicides in fa.wiki because he is stewards and have power from meta. also I said upper that I`m not "truth seeker" and he blocked me only for editing war and his try for POV pushing on fa.wikies articles. regards,--Namus 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Mardetanha and the other admins on fawiki knows perfectly well that he can't use steward-powers on fawiki, and that they fear him for it is bullshit. If no other admins are willing to help your case, then it's probably because they agree with Mardetanha, and that means you should stop and think about what it is you are doing on fawiki... Laaknor 14:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don`t know why the other admins didn`t try to solve my case but one of them said me in email that he is steward and couldn`t Violations about his blocking and guid me to metawiki. also I think the truth seeker case is exist everyday and they think it`s regular blocking. I proposed u or any stewards make page like this judged why mardetanha blocked user who have edit war with him. I couldn`t write email to all admins because I didn`t want many of them know my email address and IP. thanks.--Namus 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • now I see this steward have had the some another illegal actions on fa.wiki. in the blocking policy we have that admins who blocked couldn`t use his options to unblocking himselves. but mardetanha cite to this log in 15 november 2009 has been opened himself one minute after block with bureaucrat for wheel war after electing for steward in meta. you think it`s legal?--Namus 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ten.wikipedia.org

We're starting to get inundated with traffic at tenwiki as we promote it more and the anniversary approaches. Any help from stewards on deleting test pages and vandalism would be welcome. If you would prefer to have local sysop rights, then just ask I'll grant them to you. Thanks! Steven Walling at work 09:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe also give temp local sysop rights to some active trusted users? Tiptoety talk 09:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe check tenwiki:Special:Log/rights to see if that's happening? Killiondude 09:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to help out if it is needed and anyone wants to grant me the rights? If it is under control then no problem. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Already taken care of. ;-) Tiptoety talk 09:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)