Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2025-01

mswiki need to be added in gswikiset!

I think mswiki needs to opt in, there it seems that global sysops and stewards are needed. Because the local sysops are not very active (according to the active sysops script I installed here, 1 user is active), and also there's no local discussions here. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 14:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done. Mswiki doesn't meet the scope (12 local sysops and all of them have performed admin actions in the last two months), and seems to have no local opt-in discussion. Under these circumstances, an opt-in discussion is required. EPIC (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tanbiruzzaman mswiki would indeed need to opt in to be added. Currently, it fails both criteria Global sysops specifies to allow automated access to GS: it has more than 10 administrators in total (12 as of now) and more than 3 administrators with a logged action in the last month (8 admins, see Xtools. You are welcomed to propose opt-ing in locally, but given the policy-mandated are not met, the only way for the wiki to be added to the gswikiset is through a local consensus. That being said, in emergencies, stewards can act on all wikis. So, if there is ever a mswiki-related emergency, feel free to make a report to the stewards, and we could take a look. Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: EPIC (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Crosswiki Machinetranslation

I have noticed that there are strong crosswiki machine translations in the area of the countries, colors and animals, I have also looked at how they are. e.g. I don't speak fat but I have informed myself that the article uses strongly twi-typical characteristics. in other example bug languages it is similar. Posts come from IPs or accounts that are usually fairly new and only have a few hundred edits. Edits come from IPs or accounts that are usually fairly new and only have a few hundred edits, one after the other. Some IPs are global blocked. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Crosswiki Machinetranslation or potential cross wiki abuse

I'm not sure this is the most appropriate place to discuss the below issues. In that case, please move this to the appropriate venue.

I was reviewing the most interwiki-linked pages on Wikipedia and noticed that David Woodard has articles in 325 languages, including English, which is the highest number for any subject (tied with Turkey). Notably, David Woodard is not listed in any level of vital articles.

I checked the Malayalam Wikipedia, where I'm an administrator, and found that the article is a rough machine translation. Upon further investigation, I discovered that one editor, User:Swmmng, created articles about David Woodard in multiple languages, including Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Nepali. A review of User:Swmmng's global edit history suggests that they may be responsible for creating most of the interwiki links for this.TheWikiholic (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Shāntián Tàiláng glock

With all due respect, I think stewards may not be looking deeply enough into this matter. This user absolutely does meet the description of "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam"

This all started over four years ago at en.wikt. What I don't think the Stewards are getting is that all the other blocks flow from that same problem, he just keeps moving the same complaints from one wiki to another and dragging more users into it. The original block is for "Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion: using IPs to evade block; continuing to ping other users to ask them make edits for them after request to stop pinging other editors" This is exactly what they did on en.wp, Commons, el.wikt, and here, stretching from 2022 until just a few days ago here on Meta. The socking may have stopped, but the rest has just dragged on and on with no sign that they have the slightest understanding of why it is unacceptable. In fact, they suggested at User talk:Bastique#Something I really meant to say on COM:AN/U that the real problem is that they should be exempt from the normal expectations because of their personal issues. Note also that they pinged me in that discussion, when part of what has gotten them blocked across multiple projects over four years is nuisance pinging.

(Yoruba), the admin who blocked them for three months on Commons, upon seeing that they instantly imported the dispute here, supported global action.

I am the last of several blocking admins on en.wp and I also am asking for it as they have pestered me personally, deliberately, across three WMF sites. I thought I was done when re-blocking them without talk page access last month but since then they have carried the dispute to Commons and then here, exhibiting the exact same behavior that led to the initial block on en.,wikt. That they aren't blocked on every single project where they have ever made a single edit does not excuse this.

One of their sock accounts is already globally locked.

This person is incapable of learning from their errors. This has been going on for years and admins from multiple projects are asking for help from stewards, and it is not the first time it has been asked for. Please rid of us this user without forcing an RFC for a ban. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be supportive of a global block, with the possibility that the block be locally exempted on enws. I agree with Alaa that this would typically be a candidate for a global ban, but I think the introduction of account global blocks gives us a middle ground, time saving option in cases like this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You're free to express this at the RfC. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)