Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2026-07

Systemic tool misuse and administrative retaliation on ckb.wikipedia

I am requesting urgent Steward intervention regarding a severe breakdown of administrative accountability, tool misuse, and targeted retaliation on ckb.wikipedia.

• The Core Issue: (Please see here) Local administrators are actively coordinating to bypass standard dispute resolution, using long-term blocks to enforce a localized viewpoint and silence policy-compliant editors.
• The Urgent Retaliation: After a highly irregular topic-ban block was lifted by Administrator A, Administrator B (User:Kushared) immediately performed a drive-by removal of the exact same sourced content. When I attempted to open a talk page discussion regarding the revert, Administrator B completely ignored the notification and immediately imposed an arbitrary 6-month block on my account without explanation.
• Failure of Local Governance: The project lacks any functioning local dispute resolution. The small local sysop group is actively participating in or enabling this tool abuse to suppress policy compliance, making global oversight the only viable remedy.

A comprehensive Request for Comment detailing the full timeline, off-wiki coordination, and exact diffs has been established here: Requests for comment/Sysop abuse and intimidation on ckb wiki. I kindly request a review of these administrative actions. ▸ épine _talk♬ 18:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There's already an RFC about this, and as it's apparently a content issue there's not much we can do. If you believe this is a case of systemic abuse, see U4C. A09|(pogovor) 17:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I’ll check it out. And yes, it is indeed systemic, but I’d like to hear your advice, @A09, would you consider it system abuse if syspos hand arbitrary unjustified blocks in content disputes they’re involved it, if they hold RFCs while they block opposing views and discredit their voices in RFCs, if there is off wiki coordination campaigns for content censorship, etc? ▸ épine _talk♬ 00:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It's up to U4C to decide on the matter, not me. A09|(pogovor) 06:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: A09|(pogovor) 10:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Multiple Nigerian Users Swept up in CheckUser for Chinemeremprince and Bembety

Hi all, multiple organizers in Nigeria have reported to me that some of their event participants got swept up in a series of sock puppet investigations because they were doing similar edits during a series of events. The organizers identifying the accounts are @Ptinphusmia @Ridzaina and @Muze'n associated with Wikimedia_Digi-Youth_Club

The users that I understand to be different people (and verified by the above)s are UserAnastesia chi and user:Dolphyb among potentially others have been caught up in sockpuppet investigations of Chinemeremprince and Bembety. I understand that several of the users have put in UTRS requests, but I will let the pinged organizers explain the differences of users (since I am not on the ground), Sadads (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sadads I can vet for Dolphyb not being the same account as Chinemeremprince. Dolphyb joined the movement in 2020 and was one of the early contributors that shaped the institution and launch of the Wikimedia Nigeria Imo State Network in 2021. And he has grown from being an editor in that community to leading it since January 2026. On the other hand, Chinemeremprince joined the movement in 2022. He is currently a member of the Igbo Wiki Fanclub Alvan while supporting the Wikimedia Nigeria Imo State Network leadership in an assistant role. In June 2026, they both participated in the Wikimedia Nigeria Imo State Network local activity for the global 1Lib1Ref 2026 campaign, and must have caused confusion that mistook Dolphyb and Chinemeremprince as the same user when in fact, they are different users. Ptinphusmia (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Anastesia chi is not locked or globally blocked. User:Dolphyb is locked, ping to locking steward @علاء: and lock requester @Girth Summit: for feedback. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The link between Chinemeremprince and Dolphyb is technically strong. Would participating in that event make it likely that they would log out of one account and into the other on the same device within a minute of each other? Girth Summit _(blether) 07:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Girth Summit Thank you for your response. One of the privileges we don't enjoy in Nigeria and broader Africa is reliable internet and volunteers usually struggle with this during online and in-person events. 13 June 2026 was one of such days. I was made to understand that during the physical launch of the 1Lib1Ref 2026 campaign organized by Wikimedia Nigeria Imo State Network, Dolphyb experienced internet connectivity problems on his computer and was unable to get online. Because of this, he briefly borrowed Chinemeremprince's device to log into his own account, User:Dolphyb. The login was successful, and he confirmed that he was logged into his own account. When he attempted to edit an article, a message appeared indicating that Chinemeremprince was blocked. Dolphyb checked again and confirmed that he was still logged in as User:Dolphyb. Since he did not want to cause any confusion, he immediately logged out of the device without making any edits from it. Afterwards, he borrowed a different device belonging to Kulest and used that device for the remainder of the presentation and live demonstration. This was the only occasion in which Dolphyb used Chinemeremprince's device to access his account. They do not share devices as a regular practice, and Dolphyb do not control or have access to Chinemeremprince's account. I believe this isolated incident may explain any technical connection between their accounts, but they are not the same person or operate each other's account. Ptinphusmia (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I want to endorse that this seems like a reasonable explanation general problem here - when I was at the Foundation we regularly found examples of this kind of problem because of the constraints on the ground: multiple people needing to use the same device because of poor networks (when I visited Ghana, my Google Fi chip was constantly bouncing between different providers) or route editing through a singular IP/device. While the mobile penetration is very good, the improvisation on the ground during events to solve tends to be me users going between devices, networks, or sometimes using eachothers networks.

I don't know if there is a good way to solve this, but with an old account like Dolphyb that has a history of participating in different events than Chinemeremprince -- I have similar doubts that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ozims_Divine could be a puppet of Chinemeremprince from editing behavior (they are participating in sometimes the same, but sometimes different events on multiple wikis -- you would have to have pretty ambitious and complex editing behavior to manage socks in that way).

The problem is that newcomer events in the Global South scale best when doing repetive editing tasks, frequently off the Wikipedias, and those behaviours happen during different time frames on different wikis -- for example the Bembety investigation, has users working in radically different Nigerian languages (Hausa and Igbo) blocked as the same account holder? Seems rather weird to me, and is using helpful behavior between enthusiastic community during similar moments of rallying, but with different behaviors/locations/time windows. Sadads (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for the additional context and for explaining the circumstances surrounding the event. After reviewing the information available, including the explanation provided here, I'm satisfied that there is sufficient reason to reconsider the lock in this case. I have therefore unlocked User:Dolphyb.

As a general reminder, shared devices and networks at outreach events can create technical links that may complicate investigations. Where possible, organizers should encourage participants to avoid using each other's devices to log into their accounts, or to inform CheckUsers privately if such situations occur. --Alaa :)..! 14:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ptinphusmia, @Sadads: That’s a situation that should have been avoided and it was quite irresponsible to put volunteers in it. Can you explain why one of the organizers of the event is a sockpuppeteer blocked since 2023 on English Wikipedia, which is the main project of the event? Do you understand that, if that happens again, everyone sharing the same IP may be blocked? Avoiding a sockpuppeteer as organizer is the minimim. Just having them editing at the event is inappropriate, since it disrespects the desire of community of not having this user editing and put others in risk of being blocked as well. —Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Teles I think its important to understand that these kinds of technical details are very "insider" to a very elite part of the movement -- the only reason I am aware of this information is I have spent years as both an Admin and worked for the Foundation to try to unblock these kinds of barriers for new organizers. For the average North American or European editor this would never be important, they have personal devices that are typically on a static IP assigned per location.

Whereas, in the global south, sharing inexpensive devices, and learning by switching between humans or accounts on a device is fairly common. (I attended an event in Ghana where there was one laptop per 3 people, and we have documented similar dynamics on the ground in other places like Bangladesh, Philippines and Nigeria) -- I would hope that the Stewards would take a bit more time looking at things like Event Registration, hashtags, and documentation of events before blocking groups of editors en-mass -- especially for IPs/Devices coming from Nigeria and other regions where we have enthusiastic, if still learning, newer organizers (typically with an event page documenting their work and recently, with Event Registration. I know I made a ton of mistakes as a newcomer in 2008-2010 -- but we didn't have nearly the vigilance that tends to happen for newcomers in the last 5-10 years, Sadads (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Sadads, we know that the outreach conditions in many Global South communities can indeed create complex technical links, but organizers also have a responsibility to understand the risks involved. The concern raised by Teles is valid: having a user with a confirmed sockpuppetry history and a block on English Wikipedia involved in organizing or participating in an event can put other contributors at risk, especially when shared devices or networks are used. This is exactly why organizers need to be more aware of account security and community restrictions.

Investigations must still be based on documented facts, not used to excuse risky setups. The responsibility lies first with organizers to avoid putting blocked sockpuppeteers in positions that can endanger other contributors, and with communities to take account of existing restrictions before events happen. Better communication is necessary, but it does not replace accountability. --Alaa :)..! 18:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Teles and @علاء, thank you both for your feedback. I've taken note of your points.

The past few days have been quite challenging and emotional. It's my first time dealing with a situation like this, so there's been a lot to process. At the same time, it's been a valuable learning experience, especially in understanding the importance of making difficult decisions when necessary, regardless of how active or dedicated a community member may be.

@علاء, do you happen to know of any good resources on the topics you mentioned, particularly account security and community restrictions? I'd especially appreciate video recordings from Commons or other Wikimedia training sessions that cover these topics in depth.Dolphyb (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this Dolphyb. I appreciate your willingness to learn from the experience.

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a single comprehensive Wikimedia training or video that covers these topics in depth. Most of the relevant guidance is spread across different documentation pages, particularly those covering account security, multiple accounts, CheckUser, and the Universal Code of Conduct.

This may actually be a gap worth addressing. A dedicated training session for event organizers on account security, shared devices, IP-related risks, and community restrictions could help prevent situations like this in the future. It may be worth exploring whether the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety and Community Development teams could support developing such guidance or training materials for organizers. --Alaa :)..! 18:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 16:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Structural oversight on Wikidata

Requesting closure of this RFC. This is purely a content dispute - the creator is trying to negotiate the undeletion of Wikidata entries about themself and their writings; see d:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2026/06#Request for undeletion – Q138048287 (Levent Bulut) for context. There is no evidence of a larger problem requiring outside intervention. Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Recommendation to lift global locks

This is further to a prior discussion on this noticeboard. I was asked to review the local blocks on three of the accounts (listed below) involved in the original global lock request. It is not clear to me why the accounts were not globally unlocked at the initial request because they remained blocked on only one project, so that the allegation of cross-wiki disruption was no longer applicable. Nonetheless, it was suggested to me that the blocks on English Wikipedia be reviewed before further steward action was likely to be considered.

The following users have now been unblocked following further investigation and discussion with the blocking CheckUser. Thus, they are no longer blocked on any project. Please lift their global locks.

• Chinemeremprince
• Ozims_Divine
• Anumodu_favour_Amarachi

I leave it to the stewards to independently determine if the other accounts identified in the original global lock request still meet the standard for global locking, as I was not requested to review those blocks/locks and cannot speak to their current situation. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Risker (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@M7: want to look at these first? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Risker, @Xaosflux: Considering facts exposed in this page, I've removed the locks. Thanks for your help in reviewing this. --M/ (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@WikiBayer, as the requester of the locks, do you have any advice about other locked users (and still locally blocked on multiple projects)? Thanks, --M/ (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

There have been repeated edits to entries on similar or identical topics. If multiple users have indeed shared a computer and CheckUser information cannot therefore be directly verified, it is difficult to say whether they were truly different users or whether one person might, in fact, have multiple accounts. Enwiki and Wikidata CUs took place at different times, but it's also possible that a group of Persons meets more often. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 07:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Require RfC filers to be autoconfirmed on Meta closure

Requests for comment/Require RfC filers to be autoconfirmed on Meta is overdue for closure (it requires Steward closure since Requests for comment/Policy is by its own terms a global policy and says Only stewards can close any RFC [...] changing global policy) * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe we should strike comments by globally (b)locked / WMF banned users. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

done, I have strike out comments from globally (b)locked users. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 14:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)