Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2012-07

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 July 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

‎User Vito Genovese in Turkish Wikipedia

‎Hi, is a general encyclopedia wiki in Turkish which is naturally disliked by most of the Turkish wikipedia users. User:Vito Genovese in the Turkish Wikipedia yesterday has gone back years past in the turkish wikipedia history to clean all the discussions and all other includes that contain the word ansiklopedika and censored all of them. He has got not a cause for that more than personal dislike. It is against the policy about censorship in wikipedia projects. I have tried to explain about the case in the turkish wikipedia but user kibele and use vito genovese censors all about complaints and words that contain the word Ansiklopedika. I have no good English and also very weak about the case so i need your help against the censorship of the word Ansiklopedika in Turkish wikipedia. Thanks a lot. 09:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Putting it mildly why is strictly necessary, in order to make work, to deal with ansiklopedika? --Vituzzu (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I find that censor necessary because of spammers and trolls. Some IPs come and attend at discussions once in every month just to write the name of the encyclopedia website. So the censorship is not unfair. Utku Tanrivere (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Who knows that some i.p.s are not used by you Mr. Utku? Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If you had logical reason for suspect, you could request for check. Utku Tanrivere (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Ansiklopedika is not censored, it is blacklisted because of the trolling and spam by its users. The links are used for trolling wikipedia discussions. Most common usage form is the addition of "help ansiklopedika then!" to every unresolved discussion by an IP adress, which may sometimes be identified as our past trolls. was also used for spamming, but to a lesser extent. I know that ansiklopedika is a genuine attempt to create an encyclopedia, but it still lacks enough quality articles and the sheer number of trolls make it unreasonable to remove from blacklist.--Khutuck (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
IE it is not a peer reviewed source which is why it is not a reliable source. Like all other typical wikis, forums, and blogs. -- とある白い猫 chi? 07:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
At least Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey finds it reliable source as you can see here as a source # 77 Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
May i ask sources for trolling and spam by its users please? Could you show a few spamming and trolling examples? You should know when you say something you have to prove it. Thank You. 08:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
lacks enough quality articles: Kürtaj at Ansiklopedika Kürtaj at TR wikipedia; Emniyet kemeri at Ansiklopedika Emniyet Kameri at tr wikipedia; Gelişmekte olan ülkeler at Ansiklopedika Gelişmekte olan ülkeler at tr wikipedia; Truva Atı at Ansiklopedika Truva Atı at TR wikipedia. And you are right Turkish wikipedia has not got 7500 galaxy stubs. Best regards. 08:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not the place for such a complaint. Feel free to file a Requests for comment. This noticeboard is for urgent steward interventions such as spam bot attacks or compromised accounts. -- とある白い猫 chi? 08:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. 08:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Long-term cross wiki spamming against Azerbaijan and Turkey articles by blocked User: who has the ability to hack

User: who is permanently blocked in the English, Assyrian, Navaho, Saterland Frisian, Thai and Welsh Wikipedias and temporarily blocked in various other Wikipedias and in Wikimdia Commons is spamming the same images cross-wiki in the Turkey and Azerbaijan country articles again under these IP addresses:

The user was the subject of serious acts of vandalism as had been the case in English Wikipedia until the permanent block: English Wikipedia User talk:

Other spammings from these addresses is happening cross-wiki and relentlessly so. Apart from vandalism I am afraid that this user has the ability to hack because some of the articles this user edited on were briefly disrupted. The IP address of the user is subject to change but stem from the same region and the pattern is the same. Due to the constantly changing IP addresses, is it possible to semi-protect the Turkey and Azerbaijan articles from IP vandalism, since many Wikipedia encyclopedias in other languages are small and ill prepared to deal with this ongoing vandalism?

Saguamundi 17:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If the images are the same, the abuse filter will work better. Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Protection of articles is an issue for local wikis, not for stewards, though if requests are left unconsidered at local wikis then global sysops (and stewards) are able to undertake the consideration. The protection is not something that stewards can resolve by imposing a universal decision on communities. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Complaint re: User:Vituzzu - Global Sysop action at tpi.wikipedia

Hi. I wish to file a complaint against User:Vituzzu for the abuse of his global sysop tool at As the local administrator to that site, I placed a block against a user under the name of Irclogbot around 2 months ago. There was at that time, no indication of the owner of the bot, and given the potential risk of (what I thought to be) a bot which logs IRC being present on the wiki, I proceeded to issue an indef block. About 1 hour ago, Vituzzu, performing a global sysop action, unblocked that bot without speaking to me first or even leaving a message on my talk page to ask me to unblock it.

My issue here is that I subsequently discovered from a discussion about the action with him on IRC in #wikipedia-en that not only did he unblock the bot, he owns the bot - and that to me, at least in my mind, is wrong. You should not be carrying out unblock actions against things or accounts you own. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Since the site has a local administrator (me), I am not happy that this action was performed, and consultation with another steward over this matter tells me that this could be seen as abuse of the tools. Your assistance in clearing this matter up, swiftly, would be welcomed. Thank you. BarkingFish (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the error in the title, and thank you Peter Symonds for picking that up. I wrongly assumed the same person because of the user's irc nickname. Sorry. BarkingFish (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have just been educated about that myself: bots without edits are not supposed to be blocked, they do not need a contact-page until their first edit. So you should not have blocked this one. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit conflict, but along the lines of what Seb az86556 was saying, why did you block it in the first place? Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec) no, wait, your reason was different. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see, he just blocked it because he felt it was violating a Wikimedia policy without making any attempt to contact the bot owner or find out what the bot did. Makes sense. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the reason was that I got it the wrong way round. That was my fault. The message had intended to infer that public logging of IRC via Wikipedia was forbidden, per the information here on meta in the IRC FAQ. I blocked this one because the immediate view of the username gave me the impression that the intention of the bot was to log IRC communications via Wikipedia. I am now, thanks to you Seb, only just educated also that bots without edits should not be blocked. So the issue is now two things: I should not have blocked the bot - which I accept, but also that Vituzzu as the owner of the account should not have unblocked it. I accept whatever comes to me for what I did wrong, I have no qualms about that at all. And, Ajraddatz - there was no indication of who owned the bot, I only found that out when I was informed of the unblock in #wikipedia-en. BarkingFish (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for overruling you action but as I said on the irc your action has been made with a complete false reason (as you told me on the irc): the logging of most of IRC channel on the wiki is not allowed, while every content from wiki can be used everywhere (!!).
I recognize I would had better asked you before (and actually I didn't see you were on the irc) but honestly I thought it was a clear-cut case (so it perfectly fits our policies) on a global-sysop wiki so it didn't need more attention also considering it was a really low-low-importance issue.
Anyway I'd like to ask you why did you show to be fine with my explanation on the irc and then you started this thread, it's quite a strange behaviour imho. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't completely fine with your explanation on IRC, you will note above though that part of it was an error in the way I worded the block. As I said, I had no idea who owned it, there was no indication on the talk page or the user page of who owned the account, so I had nobody physically whom I could contact to find out what it was supposed to do, prior to applying the block. It didn't seem to reach you that I have a talk page you could have written on, before doing this, and that you shouldn't be unblocking accounts that you own. A clear cut case (in my mind) is asking someone else to lift the block - on an account you own, it's the equivalent almost of unblocking yourself. Also, just to note - the reason I started the thread was discussion of this with someone else who is a steward, and whom I will not name unless ordered to do so - that person informed me that your actions amounted to abuse of GS privileges. BarkingFish (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Our "final statement" was "well I'd better ask you to do it" but now it seems to find out the "great abuse". Changing your mind is not so clean but is quite legit, the "steward of the Mistery" is also a weird detail but, it is, just a detail.
Anyway, meanwhile I was having that issue on I was discussing about a similar problem (a completely wrong block) on but I did anything on my own. This clearly shows I thought the block of my irclogbot was just a mistake and it was a clear-cut problem to be solved. Again I apologised about it so it's pointless to go on saying the same things. If you think I did an unrepairable abuse start an rfc about me asking the removal of my tools, honestly I cannot do anything more than apologising for this supposed COI. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
We leave it there then. However, all stewards please note the message below. Thank you. BarkingFish (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Username changes

Hello. I made a request for changing username for me and for my bot. I know that's too much, but it's just a notification. Thanks.--Avocato (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)