Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2019-11

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

Bias and Admin abuse in English Wikipedia

  • I reported in Wikipedia about bias and misconduct by two Admins, User:David Eppstein and User:Johnuniq, and other users in the Administrator noticeboard. I was accused of bad faith without any explanation in their edit summaries, in the talk page of the article and in the Noticeboard, for pointing out my concerns, an Admin made an atempt to censor me and now is this admin, Bbb23, is threatening to ban me for point out this. I took it back about the censorship after this admin suggested that I should post it in the ANI, but after their last message I can't assume good faith anymore. The Admin User:Acroterion tried to coerce me in abandoning my statement on the comment made by User:Wcherowi because according to them an ethnic joke by a Western in a discussion about Western bias is not a ""clear proof"" of racism and me reverting their unfounded edits and accusations was "disruptive" so I should shut up. To me is racist and I will keep going to speak my mind on that. There is no willing to resolve this issues there so I will take it here. Rupert loup (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Read User talk:-revi/FAQ#desysop. Especially that English Wikipedia is self-functioning community that does not need Stewards to investigate admin abuse. — regards, Revi 05:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. I guess there is no much more that I can do. Rupert loup (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Your last option might be contacting English Wikipedia arbitration committee. — regards, Revi 13:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


Hi! I'm looking for info on why Special:CentralAuth/Motizun was blocked as LTA. Was there a public thread somewhere? czar 02:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: My eyes and skills are as good as yours, and it would seem that there is a checkuser block, which would all be internal enWP issue. Any public request would be in the archives of SRG search result. After that, one would suspect that it came from enWP checkuser to stewards via their contact means. My guess is that you would be best to start your conversations locally at enWP with the blocking admin. Otherwise a ping to the blocking steward will usually get an alerted response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks—I've already contacted the enwp blocking admin and the talk page of the Meta global locker (@-revi) said to ask here. And if the rationale is private, is there at least a public place where the LTA pattern is established? czar 13:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: The checkusers talk in private, so depending on whether you desire this from a Commons or an enWP perspective, I would suggest you target those people for the flags they saw. In my time as a steward, I would have always referred it back to community as they own and manage the data. Stewards just have the access to the binary lock switch, and usually heed the request of a CU without overly questioning the evidence. Personally I would have got into a enWP admins' private IRC channel and get the CU to spill some beans.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
It's probably bad idea to send inquiry about my action directly to SN — made an exception for such case. For the case itself, as Billinghurst says, I usually do not question CU's finding and heed their request (of course I try to double-check Trust but verify but for things like CU on enwiki that is simply not possible.) so you'd have better luck by asking them or checking for the sockmaster. — regards, Revi 14:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: czar 13:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible cross-wiki promotion question

Hoping to get some advice from the stewards about the best venue to discuss this:

There are several professional photographers who donate to Commons, include links to their commercial website on the file page, and add photos to Wikipedia. This is more or less uncontroversial, as long as the links, etc. remain on the file page. There is a user, however, that does this but also includes the image on dozens of Wikimedia projects. See, for example commons:Special:GlobalUsage/DJ_Bad_Ash_2018_by_Glenn_Francis.jpg - an image of a person who is not themselves notable that has been added to 50 articles for "DJ" (a topic for which we have very many possible images).

This came up on the enwiki administrators' noticeboard because the uploader has also been edit warring to keep the image in the article on the English Wikipedia. Enwiki can, of course, take action regarding the behavioral issues, but as the files themselves on Commons are not problematic, it leaves open the question of how best to handle multi-wiki promotion? It seems impractical to raise discussions at every affected project, and inappropriate to simply remove the image from those other projects.

Thoughts? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Best spot for the discussion is on Commons VP or their user talk page if things are originating at Commons. Stewards don't have a special role in that regard s I understand it. If there is enough demand and angst from the community about an editor then they can act.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I don't think this is a Commons issue (to whatever extent it is an issue), since there's no abuse of Commons. The uploads are all legitimate. The issue (or question) is about whether it's appropriate for an editor to add their own picture (or, hypothetically, adding an external link or some other element) to as many projects as possible, regardless of knowing the language, understanding the community norms, etc. of those projects. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Control starts at Commons. This is a social issue, we make it Commons concern as this is where the person is primarily editing. Community across many places is at Commons, and they are the eyes and the control required, so that is where we stir-the-pot. Anything on this page, or at meta may be nice, however, it is tucked away among the pseudo-elite. Images uploaded solely for the purpose of advertising or promotion are out of scope, and that person is trending that way when they are replacing existing images holus-bolus on wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
They aren't images used solely for advertising. They are in scope (assuming you're referring to COM:SCOPE). That's part of why this is not a Commons problem, regardless of where they're primarily active. Nothing is wrong with the images themselves. It's possible nothing is wrong at all. That's why I'm asking advice from the stewards, who have experience dealing with cross-wiki issues. I wasn't seeking any specific action. If they're [understandably] not interested to do anything (and [less understandably] not interested to provide any comment on it), the default action here is no action, because, again, there's no problem on Commons (and, again, not necessarily a problem elsewhere -- it's just highly unusual). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Об администраторах Википедии

Обращаюсь к Вам по поводу бездействия некоторых администраторов таджикской википедии adminstats/ Администраторы Darafsh, Omid_Jeyhani, Ibrahim не проявляют желания выполнять обязанности администраторов.

* Поставить вопрос о голосовании в сообществе я не могу. Причина отсутствие активных участников в Википедии Active users list
* Просьба к Вам рассмотреть обсуждаемую проблему. --Шухрат Саъдиев (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Бездействия по поводу чего? Если администратор не проявляет никакой активности на протяжении двух лет, то с него флаг снимается по правилам Фонда (предварительно участника надо уведомить о необходимости повышения активности). Если имеются какие-то нарушения, то расскажите об этом, также со ссылками на факты.— Soul Train (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Decent articles; cryptic messages

I have no clue what to make of this anonymous user whatsoever. I know I probably shouldn't block them, but their edit summaries are really starting to freak me out. All this user does is post pretty decent articles on that seem to be translations of articles to some extent, but instead of leaving the edit summary blank... idk how to explain it. They post an edit summary which is always an all-caps section that straight up doesn't exist within the article. Examples include: #NEWS LIGHT, #DAYLIGHT DEVOTION, or recently it's been #MOMENTS WITH GOD. It almost never has anything to do with whatever content is written (which btw is by all standards stellar in comparison to the usual unsourced stubs I have to sift through).

Then there was this edit, "→‎500 INTERNAL SERVER ERROR (DATABASE ERROR): ERROR ESTABLISHING A DATABASE CONNECTION" and now I'm totally confused.

Can a steward (or anyone for that matter) please tell me if this is something that other small wikis have experienced? Please ping responses. –MJLTalk 07:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Are those translations really good? Ruslik (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Surprisingly, yeah.
Also, another one just got released today as well: Ras Dashen with the message "PRAYER POWER" –MJLTalk 18:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Perhaps the user is well intentioned but is using edit summaries like car bumper stickers. I suggest that you post a note on the user's talk page to thank them for their edits and to ask them to write edit summaries that are actually edit summaries instead of personal musings. ↠Pine () 05:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Pine: Should I wait until they post another article since it's a dynamic IP address from the looks of it? –MJLTalk 05:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: I think that it's OK for you to use your discretion. The user doesn't appear to be doing anything malicious in the edit summaries. If they start to post strange text in the content of their translations, or if their edit summaries start to become promotional, then there would be a bigger problem. I think that it's good for you to watch them and to ask them to use more informative edit summaries, but I don't think that worry is necessary at the moment. Something else that should be done, if this user isn't doing it, is to provide appropriate credit to the authors of the articles which they are using as sources for their translations. Failing to provide appropriate credit is a reason for blocking, but because they seem to be posting good translations you can say that nicely instead of applying a block. If they continue to use inappropriate edit summaries and not to provide appropriate credit then I think that you should block them with the message that their content is good but they need to fix those two issues before being allowed to continue with their otherwise good work. ↠Pine () 06:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Pine: Okay, I will try to follow this advice! I'm a little gun-shy about blocking in general, and I only have 13 blocks to my name at the moment. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that for this user, and I will probably do my best just to avoid that situation as possible (with sufficient warnings and the like). Their content is really solid, and I wouldn't want to lose them as an editor. I'll just have to see what happens then and react appropriately in kind. –MJLTalk 06:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate linking in edit summaries

A user on the Outreach wiki included a Twitter link in an edit summary but created no content in their edit other than creating a user page. This is the first time that I can recall seeing this tactic. My guess is that the link was posted in the edit summary for the purpose of trying to boost search rankings. I'm sharing this information here to notify other admins and stewards to be watchful for this type of junk in edit summaries. ↠Pine () 05:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think edit summaries are taken into consideration when it comes to SEO (especially Google)? Correct me if I am wrong. — regards, Revi 01:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Editors blocked for participating in hrwiki RFC

See my concerns outlined at [1]. If this is true, this edges into emergency desysop territory. --Rschen7754 22:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Left a comment on the RFC. You might want to contact them via talk page? — regards, Revi 01:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: Happy to do it, but I think it would carry more weight if it came from a steward. --Rschen7754 18:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)