User talk:Eihel

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

Your edits at ID wiktionary[edit]

About Pembicaraan_Pengguna:120.188.95.154&curid=217254&action=history: the syntax is still {{subst:vandal|...}} -- you had got it right several times previously. Optionally "spam" instead of "vandal" if appropriate. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

SRG[edit]

Hi there, please see my comments on Steward requests/Global and let me know if you have more questions. ~riley (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Continuing to add to SRG, disregarding my comments, is not helping.. ~riley (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello @~riley:,
At the start, there is (Q22980971), a cyclist nicknamed Mehdi Rajabi with references on
I was on RTRC when I see that (Q81947973), a cyclist, changes his date of birth.
1) 5.123.43.63 change date of birth (P569) at March 31, 1996.
2) 5.123.43.63 changes date of birth (P569) on March 21, 1996.
3) MediaPluss put date of birth (P569) on July 21, 1996
4) w:en:Mehdi Rajabi was created by Seacactus 13 in 2017. MediaPluss changed Mehdi Rajabi to a basketball player born on January 1, 1998, reverted by Ahmad Kanik.
5) 5.123.43.63 places a redirect to MohammadMehdi Rajabi and changes the date of birth to March 31, 1996.
6) MediaPluss moved page w:en:Mehdi Rajabi to MohammadMehdi Rajabi
7) 5.123.43.63 removes his redirect and renames all MohammadMehdi Rajabi.
I check and I realize that the reference on WP does not match. I'm looking for other references and I realize that other WP pages exist on cawiki and frwiki. These other pages have a date of birth which corresponds to vandalism, but with other users and other IPs. After removing the vandalism on WD and merged (Q81947973) with (Q22980971) (which is the correct Item), I start to list the users and IP involved.
8) 5.124.148.216 removes the sitelink from (Q22980971)
9) MediaPluss changes Q22980971 to a hacker named Mh6ti, born on July 1, 1998, etc. Again, User:Ahmad Kanik removes these vandalisms.
10) 5.123.43.63 changes the whole WD page again with the return of the date of birth 31 March 1996.
11) I made a mistake with Sbc1, it is User:ماکسیم 1211 who created a photo on Commons today. It adds it to enwiki. Fitindia has already deleted a personal photo in the past.
12) 5.123.43.63 adds the photo to WD
13) User:غير مسجل 12 introduces: Mehdi Rajabi (from his full name Mehdi Rajabi) on frwiki
14) 5.124.148.216 continues with: Mehdi Rajabi (from his full name Mh6ti) is a hacker
15) Binabik revokes all these vandalism
16) User:ماتیاس00 changes his date of birth again on frwiki
etc.
The IPs and users that I have provided to you:
  1. are a long search
  2. They have all misrepresented WM globally.
If you haven't seen the concordance of vandalism sur une courte période, I'm worried. There are still 5.124.178.101, 5.123.32.48, user:فرهنگ 2019, User:3000bax, 5.112.208.123… All accounts are recent. For my part, I see that some have already received blockages with the CIDR. From cyclist, we go to basketball player, football player, hacker, computer engineer. The dates of birth do not match between pages and references. And the names keep changing, etc. And you don't see the correlation between IP and users? I let you read the ST:
  • QBA-bot, MalarzBOT.admin and Seewolf qualify blockages of open-proxy.
  • Yosri calls spam blocking and the rest of the IP blocks are vandalism.
  • User:علاء blocked globally 5.124.174.121 on the 5th and User:Wim b blocked globally 5.117.254.17 on the 10th.
Wim b also qualifies its blocking as open-proxy, while it is also a mobile operator (Iran Cell). I'm just going back to the usual nomenclature. Other requests on the page or in the archives do not concern open-proxies. We don't see the same thing. When users and IPs vandalize on several wikis, SRG is the place to go. Know that when I go on SRG, it is not for report disputes. And what do you mean with: you have grouped in an account? In addition to SRG, I share my observations for the stewards. Now, let me know if you have more questions… But, I would especially like that you remove your modifications on SRG which are not necessary. —Eihel (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Eihel, I have no doubt that there is disruptive going on here but your two requests showed a lack of regard for the policies/procedures clearly laid out for global blocks/locks. From a checkuser and/or steward perspective, there needs to be clear justification for their use of these sensitive tools. While nobody expects a long list as you have provided above, you need to provide more than "multiple vandalism on enwiki, cawiki, frwiki, WD, Commons". The expectation that has been set is that g[b]locks should only be placed where a combination of page protection, local blocks, and other technical and non-technical measures would be ineffective or inefficient. It is the requirement of the reporting party to justify why local wikis cannot handle the disruption and/or why steward intervention is required. Considering not a single one took action to block these parties locally, the justification cannot be implied. While most cases do not require the level of justification I have requested from you, that is because 97% of requests on SRG are cut and dry. (spambot, suspected abuse by known LTA, confirmed open proxy, abusive username, blocked on at least one wiki etc). I have no comment on the admins and bots from other wikis you are referencing, not quite relevant as each wiki has their own requirements, and it is not my place to comment on Wim b's labelling of a non-proxy of a proxy. It is important to understand the difference as they are blocked differently (block length, restrictions etc). When I said "you have grouped in an account", I was referring to Sbc1, who you incorrectly added to the lock request making the request even more confusing because of the lack of explanation. Thankfully, Ahmad has been able to connect these accounts to a suspected (and likely) LTA that is evading a lock, which significantly lowers the justification needed to investigate these accounts. As for the IPs, a request for Wikidata to place local rangeblocks would be the first step. ~riley (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Both Camouflaged Mirage and I have reverted your removal of Sbc1. Sbc1 is directly referenced in the discussion, and removing it while saying "my requests are well done" does not send a good message. That request, based on the usernames provided, were marked as not done. A clean and justified request was made from scratch. Let's walk away and let the stewards do their work. Our goal here is to stop disruptive by the users in question, let's not spend more time on this. ~riley (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@~riley: Well, you are not a steward too. In my turn, leave this request. Sbc1 is not part of my request and it is an error on my part between author and creator of file on Commons. This is ماکسیم 1211 who is already on the list. There is something I do not understand at your insistence. Please remove this user from the list. I call it deteriorating my work. If you want to add this user, make your own request. —Eihel (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@~riley: Especially if you want the stewards to take care of it, but you leave the request "not done". And you do not give more explanations compared to me! What patience! —Eihel (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
You added Sbc1 as part of your request, and it was discussed as part of your request. Removing a discussed item of a conversation, as Camouflaged Mirage said, causes confusion. Neither Camouflage or myself have intentions to deteriorate your work, only to maintain the record. The request was left as not done, because a clean and justified new request was filed - so yes, it will get taken care of by stewards. Significantly more justification is given in the new request because the accounts have been linked to a globally locked LTA; no explanation is needed when there is suspected lock evasion as it meets the requirements I previously outlined for you that your requests did not meet. Me still responding to you, even after suggesting to walk away and move on to more productive uses of our time, is a testament to my patience. ~riley (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Celtic Knot Conference 2020: 9-10.07.2020 ?[edit]

Hello,

Je me permets de t'alerter sur la prochaine conférence Celtic Knot, qui pourrait t'intéresser. L'appel à présentations est encore ouvert. Wikimedia CH n'a pas de bourse spécialement dédié à ça, mais ce serait envisageable pour quelqu'un·e qui s'implique de façon importante dans les langues minoritaires.--Flor WMCH (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

About checking the vote[edit]

Hi, Eihel. Thank you for participating in the vote! I've seen you change the pending of some users yourself, but this is done by the bot automatically. Volunteers are assisting the bots directly on this page: Template:Stewards/Elections 2020/Voters/Check(Need Checking section). some user may be able to revert your edits(changing pending) to vote management. Or you can revert your edits yourself before someone else's revert. If someone reverts your edits, that's why I said above. --Sotiale (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you, @Sotiale: I did it for your application, but there is nothing to do: the bot changes the name of the one who checked anyway. The voter is added to the list, checked by someone, and the bot changes the voting page, whatever is in the Voting Template. —Eihel (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Bot works slowly every hour. So it doesn't work immediately. I think people can change pending(That's why I didn't revert your edits), but this can sometimes make unified management difficult. I remember that bot checks every vote so that people don't check every vote directly after the vote ends. Some people can do it themselves, but the advantage of bot checking is obviously. --Sotiale (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sysop or not sysop ?[edit]

Hello dear Seb az86556,

I was on Meta and I noticed this language. This diff shows the contributor who added this language for another contributor (contribution already corrected). None of the 2 contributors is active on this wiki. I was interested in projects in Navajo and I meet this sysop (Tʼáá bíniʼdii haʼasídígíí) who is not active. I tell myself that there is a coincidence. Do I need to apply here for de-sysop ?

Best regards. —Eihel (talk) 00:44, 15 Tʼą́ą́tsoh 2020 (UTC)

Also, can I add you to the list of ambassadors for "Diné Bizaad"? (the line will not remain empty…) —Eihel (talk) 00:53, 15 Tʼą́ą́tsoh 2020 (UTC)
1. I need to be harsh and clear: Do not leave English-language messages my non-English pages. Linguistic colonialism/imperialism is not at all apprecited. That's what meta is for.
2. To answer your questions:
a) I have no idea who the user or either user is; "not very active" is an understatement. Thanks for removing her. (Fittingly, she calls herself "Invisible Woman")
b) The sysop you "met" is Guards-By-His-Own-Mind, the active abuse filter. He won't answer, but does a good (invisible) job, and nobody will desysop him (or it).
c) No, I'm not ambassador.
cheers Seb az86556 (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)