Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Stewards noticeboard)
Jump to: navigation, search
Stewards Stewards' noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the stewards' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.
  • This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
Stewards
Meta-Wiki Steward.svg
Requests
For stewards
Noticeboards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Wrongful global lock of Chyah[edit]

Hello.
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
contri-
butions
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.
global
actions
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)

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)
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 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q30559585&action=history&offset=20171121&limit=318 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)
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)
@-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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
  • Comment Comment On 8 December 2017, I wrote a record about Chyah socks on ar.wiki (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)
    … 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)
  • Comment Sometimes such locks happen although we can consider reasonable conditions for unlock. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    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)
No, the only reasonable condition will be for Chyah to stop creating any socks at all. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)
OTRS exists for this purpose. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Chyah's back with more socks - c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Chyah - Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of Userrights about Chyah and me, Rafic.Mufid[edit]

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 info-fa@wikimedia.org. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
hello @Incnis Mrsi:? --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
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)

Block-evasion spree[edit]

A block-evasion spree by a copyvioman having a network of proxies worldwide. Check-users on Commons crawl under a DDoS attack. Only mass executions can save Wikimedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry around Wendell Brown?[edit]

A new page about Wendell Brown has recently been created on many wikipedias except the ENWIKI. Most of the articles were the first edit of a brand new user. These are all one issue accounts, sometimes two issue, en:Craig Taro Gold being the second. In Dutch Wikipedia this M.O. was linked to sockpuppetry, and to machine translation, which could be the case on more wikis. Many other accounts working on the English original share an M.O. (of sorts) and an interest in en:Daisaku Ikeda and en:Soka Gakkai related matters. I made case page and it is here. SanderO (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: --Alaa :)..! 09:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Chronic cross wiki vandalism by big IP ranges[edit]

Hello, see this Global user contributions:

As you see, the same type of editing with similar edit summaries, if you search on these ranges contribution you can found a lot of others. Any suggestions? as you see that IP ranges block cannot be performed. --Alaa :)..! 11:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We can write a global filter based on the body or summary content, though most of the large wikis will not see the benefit of it as they don't use the global filters; and slight changes in the spam will defeat it. Any local wiki can copy that filter or write their own to the same effect. If abuse filters is the means to manage then I would suggest that Vandalism reports is the place to manage and compile the series of abuse variations.

It looks to be human-based editing, so it is likely to adapt to filters, so that becomes a battle of the wills. At some point, someone simply should complain to the ISP, and keep doing so until they get a response, even just for jollies. Some wikis should simply light block the ranges if they don't have Algerian contributors.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I don't really understand what you mean! but hits here today again --Alaa :)..! 16:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's difficult to make abuse filter to stop this vandal. Maybe we could set some global range blocks (anon only). Stryn (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello @علاء, Billinghurst, and Stryn: in November 2017, I have made 3 requests, but they have been ignored: Vandalism reports/Archives/2017-11#A filter for the text 571886/6886 on Meta-Wiki, w:en:Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 11#A filter for the text 571886/6886 on en.WP, and c:Commons talk:Abuse filter/Archive 2017#A filter for the text 571886/6886 on Commons.
The problem is existing since (at least) March 2017. The attacked projects are (at least) af.WP, ar.WP, de.WP, en.WP, fr.WP, fr.wiktionary, frr.WP, hu.WP, it.WP, oc.WP, sq.WP, ur.WP, Commons, Incubator, MediaWiki, Meta-Wiki and Wikidata. You can look at the global contributions of these 5 IP ranges: 105.98.0.0/16, 105.99.0.0/16, 105.100.0.0/16, 105.102.0.0/16 and 105.235.0.0/16.
About global range blocks: /16 IP ranges are too big, and I am unsure about narrower IP ranges when looking at this incomplete list:

 

About a global abuse filter: in the edit summaries of the contributions [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], for instance, there are common points: one example is the text "03183". So I still think that a global abuse filter is the best solution (+ one filter for en.WP + one for Commons).
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello,
Thank you NicoScribe for this report.
I add several projects and IP.
Others projects affected: arz.wiki, ace.wiki, nap.wiki and ar.wikinews
Others IP detected (incomplete list):
* 105.98.8.174
For the private filter on the arwiki, I think the best is to ask ASammour, it appears to be the creator or maintainer of the private filter 135 ([7]), which appears to be the filter in question, given its name "إضافة أرقام متتالية" (auto-translate : "Add consecutive numbers") and abusefilter-log for 105.98.40.168 : [8].
A global filter would be really useful (+local filter for enwiki and commons) !
Thank you.
Sorry for my bad english.
--Tractopelle-jaune (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

special:centralauth/Arianaishot2[edit]

Please lock this user (bad username) and delete the pages on testwiki. (deleted previously and other accounts locked).

(testwikiadmin note) - pages on testwiki have been deleted. — xaosflux Talk 16:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

'test' global group[edit]

With regards to the test global group I'd like to say that I don't know where the whole lot of permissions came from; never had any elevated permissions other than 'edit', 'read' or 'sendemail', among others avalaible for all (un)registered users. As you can see in the log as well, the global group was deleted on 12 March 2017 and I don't know why it has appeared again and even less with the whole lot of checkboxes ticked. I've just noticed about this group existance after dealing with a request on SRGP. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Must have been created on another SUL wiki (maybe we should move the global group modifying permissions to the local group from the global one...) – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Favour to ask when removing rights to do a meta user page check[edit]

I am having a clean-up at meta of user pages with claims of advanced rights at their respective wikis—use of the user rights templates. It would be great if stewards were able to do a quick user page check here at meta where they are removing rights, or at least ask that a user or requester does a check for any claims. Thanks if you can.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)