Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2018-03

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New creations on sdwiki

New pages on sdwiki show a possible bot editor rapidly creating pages with no useful content. The wiki has 2 administrators, one making their last action on the 22nd of February. A quick cleanup would be much appreciated. --Eurodyne (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done @Eurodyne: Thank you for the report. Green Giant (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global IP exemption but still getting notices from time to time

Hello. I was granted Global IP Block Exemptions, but from time to time on the English Wikipedia I still get "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia." notices, and I cannot edit. --DeeM28 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: This user may need the local IP block exemption on English Wikipedia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DeeM28: Please follow the process at en:Wikipedia:UTRS. Global IPBE only matches global blocks, if you are getting caught in local (enWP) blocks, then you will need local overrides.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a content dispute over at Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Croatian projects. One of the administrators from Croatian Wikipedia keeps changing the list in a way that does not correspond to the actual rights users have. For example, they keep changing the rights of Dalibor Bosits, Denny and Joy from 'sysop' to 'ex-sysop' even though the users in question still have those rights (see here, here and here under ''). Their several requests to have the rights removed were rejected by stewards, so unless another steward chooses to actually comply with their request, I don't see the point of inaccurately changing the list. See the talk page for a more in-depth explanation. -- 17:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page has been protected pending an outcome. Note this is obviously not a "content" issue in the traditional sense. — xaosflux Talk 22:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xaosflux, we are having a problem with a parachutist IP that ignores the attitude of the community of editors of Wikipedia in Croatian. Are we going to please the parachutists IP's that do not edit nor maintain the project or the true active users that express their attitude and expose their reputation by writing articles, voting or discussing? Kubura (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stewards have nothing to reject, they are obliged to according to the explicit will of the community.
For some reason, this IP dislikes the outcome of the discussion and voting and puts himself above the whole community. That IP is not from Croatia, but from Republika Srpska, entity of Radovan Karadžić, the entity that was in war with Croatia (that is completely ethnically cleansed, almost no Croats there), from which the aggression on Croatia took place.
Anyway, no answer, no explanation from the steward Vituzzu. Not towards me, not towards whole - he did not show up on our Village pump. Kubura (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've yet to explain what a 'parachutist IP' is. Based on your overall tone, I assume it's not a compliment. Anywho, people can contribute anonymously and, as I've said before, if you've got a problem with that, that's entirely on you. Furthermore, I'm by no means 'ignoring the attitude of the community of editors of Wikipedia in Croatian'. Your requests were denied twice here on Meta. I'm merely making sure you're not inaccurately changing certain pages. If another steward chooses to comply with your request, I'm not going to stand in your way in terms of editing that page. If that doesn't happen (and it most likely won't), you ought to stop vandalizing the page with inaccurate information. By the way, you get an A+ for the personal attacks / ramblings, based on geolocating my IP address, that have nothing do to with this discussion at all. Stay classy and make sure you avoid addressing anything substantial as usual. -- 22:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just noticed that you're now canvassing people to harass @Xaosflux: and @Vituzzu:, and myself while you continue to play the victim, even though you're objectively the one who keeps putting in inaccurate information on that page. This is just bizarre at this point. -- 22:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, looks like Vituzzu replied saying that they won't be fulfilling this request and that it's unlikely any other steward will either, so... That should put this to a rest, I reckon. -- 01:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrongful global lock of Chyah

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@-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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    … 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)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Sometimes such locks happen although we can consider reasonable conditions for unlock. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
No, the only reasonable condition will be for Chyah to stop creating any socks at all. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
OTRS exists for this purpose. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Chyah's back with more socks - c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Chyah - Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Misuse of Userrights about Chyah and me, Rafic.Mufid

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
hello @Incnis Mrsi:? --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]