Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2013-05

Sysop abuse of authority in Aceh Wikipedia by User:Si Gam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The temporary adminship of Si Gam has expired. In this case, I don't think it's necessary to discuss the actions of a former administrator any further. There is nothing left for the stewards to resolve here. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This was originally posted at Sysop abuse of authority in Aceh Wikipedia by User:Si Gam, moved here by J.delanoygabsadds

User:Si Gam (formerly known as Si Gam Acèh) deleted the article Geurija Isa Jatoë (ie. the Acehnese translation of True Jesus Church) in Aceh Wikipedia on February 20, 2013.

The Acehnese article had been translated into the Acehnese language by User:Si Gam Acèh himself on November 30, 2008.

However, since July 19, 2010, User:Si Gam Acèh became angry with the Danish cartoon drawings depicting the prophet muhammad. This led him to make edits such as blanking photos on other wikipedia editions, proposing that Aceh wikipedia be closed and other related acts which led to him being blocked on certain wikipedia editions.

  • On July 24, 2010 User:Si Gam tagged the TJC article on Aceh Wikipedia (Geurija Isa Jatoë) as {{delete|author request}} .
  • The deleted article was restored by User:Juhko on August 8, 2010.
  • On February 20, 2013 User:Si Gam (who has now been granted temporary sysop priviledges by User:Trijnstel) deleted the TJC article on Aceh wikipedia with the reasoning "le salah" (there are mistakes).
  • On March 3, 2013 I restored the article today but it was deleted a few hours later by User:Si Gam with the same reason given: "le salah" ([1]).

In my opinion, the so-called 'mistakes' (if there were any) can still be fixed by other Aceh speakers later on and does not warrant a deletion. I suspect that his deletion has a religious motive in it.

I had written on his talk page a while ago but he undid the revision.

User:Si Gam is not behaving in an appropriate manner and I recommend that he be Removed from his sysop priviledges should he continue his current path of conduct on Aceh Wikipedia. --Jose77 (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved this thread here. For myself, I don't read Achinese, so I am not entirely sure what is going on there, but the wheel warring is definitely unacceptable. J.delanoygabsadds 05:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the article on 05:25 (March 3, 2013). I have no doubts that he will delete it again with the same trumped-up reasoning. --Jose77 (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has been deleted again at 8.57 (March 3, 2013). I will entrust this matter to you stewards from here onwards. Goodnight. --Jose77 (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have notified Si Gam of this thread; in reply to J.delanoy, I don't see any wheelwarring since the infamous case in 2010.. Am I missing something? Snowolf How can I help? 09:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably just a misunderstanding of Jose77's words. Jose77 is not a local admin, so by 'restore' he manually recreated the page, I believe. Hence not a wheelwar--Bencmq (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just 1 comment. The article contains many mistakes. And since November 30, 2008, no one improve it. -- Si Gam (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If an article has mistakes, then you can tag the mistakes with a {{fact}} tag and then bring up a discussion on the talk page. In my experience, when in doubt, start a discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we have waited for years and no one correct it. -- Si Gam (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
No tags of any sort were ever placed on the article in Aceh Wikipedia so the Aceh users were not made aware that they could help fix any mistakes wherever they happened to be. --Jose77 (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian version: Aceh translation: English translation:

"Gereja Yesus Sejati" adalah gereja non-denominasi (mandiri) yang didirikan di Beijing, RRC pada tahun 1917. Gereja ini dimulai di Cina pada tahun 1900-an, di antara Gereja-gereja Protestan, sementara teologinya berakar pada Gerakan Pentakosta. Pada 1939, Injil dikhotbahkan ke Indonesia dan Gereja Yesus Sejati pun didirikan di Indonesia. Keseluruhan anggota Gereja ini sekitar 1,5 juta orang jumlahnya dan terdapat di lima benua. Kesepuluh kepercayaan terpenting Gereja Yesus Sejati ialah:

  1. Penerimaan Roh Kudus
  2. Baptisan air
  3. Sakramen pembasuhan kaki
  4. Perjamuan kudus
  5. Hari Sabat
  6. Yesus Kristus
  7. Alkitab
  8. Keselamatan
  9. Gereja
  10. Kedatangan Tuhan

"Geurija Isa Jatoë" nakeuh geurija non-denominasi (döng keudroë) nyang geupeudöng di Beijing, RRC bak thôn 1917. Geurija nyoë geupeuphôn di Cina bak thôn thôn 1990, di antara Geurija-geurija Protestan, salang teologijih meuukheuë bak Neugrak Pentakosta. Bak thôn 1939, Injil geupeukhôtbah u Indonesia dan Geurija Isa Jatoë pih geupeudöng di Indonesia. Ban dum anggèëta Geurija nyoë na meu 1,5 yuta droë dan na bak limöng beunuwa. Ban siplôh boh peuë nyang geupeucaya paléng peunténg Geurija Isa Jatoë nakeuh:

  1. Teurimong Roh Kudus
  2. Baptis Ië
  3. Sakramen rhah gaki
  4. Peujamèë kudus
  5. Uroë Sabat
  6. Yesus Kristus
  7. Injil
  8. Seulamat
  9. Geurija
  10. Trôk Tuhan

The "True Jesus Church" is a non-denominational church (independent) which was established in Beijing, China in 1917. The church began in China in the 1900s, among the Protestant churches, while theology is rooted in the Pentecostal Movement. In 1939, the gospel was preached to Indonesia and the True Jesus Church was established in Indonesia. The entire Church has approximately 1.5 million members and exists on five continents. The ten main beliefs of the True Jesus Church are:

  1. Holy Spirit
  2. Water Baptism
  3. Sacrament of Foot Washing
  4. Holy Communion
  5. Sabbath Day
  6. Jesus Christ
  7. Holy Bible
  8. Salvation
  9. Church
  10. Final Judgement of the Lord

The article was translated by User:Si Gam Aceh based on the the Indonesian version. Yes, he did make some minor mistakes such as typing "1990" instead of "1900"; keeping the Indonesian word "Yesus Kristus" instead of replacing it with the Aceh word "Isa Almaseh" (Matthew 1:1); keeping the word "Injil" instead of replacing it with "Alkitab" ([2]); "Baptis" instead of "Teupumanö" (Luke 3:3) But overall speaking, it has been substantially translated into Acehnese and any mistakes could be fixed later on by other Aceh speakers -- not to be immediately deleted by User:Si Gam. --Jose77 (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted on July 25, 2010. That was the tag. Do you understand Acehnese better than me? Even all Christianity materials (Bible, Good News etc) that are translated into Acehnese are full of mistakes. So do not guess something that you do not know. -- Si Gam (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The tag used on July 25, 2010 was the speedy deletion tag. When Aceh speakers see such a tag, it is unlikely they would be motivated to improve the article.
In reply to your subsequent comment on mistakes, I have already responded here. --Jose77 (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the article contains some Indonesian words, but also there are many wrong Acehnese words. Even the title is wrong. You know nothing about our native tongue. So do not use your language standard to our language. -- Si Gam (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, what kind of tag do you want? And how long you need time for the article before deletion? -- Si Gam (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You have put the tag. We will see in one month. If there is no one who correct it, the article will be deleted. -- Si Gam (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime I messaged ace:User:Naval Scene and asked him to take a look. A draft of a new article can also be put on a userpage. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I also went ahead and messaged the village pump of ACE asking users to check the accuracy of the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Naval said that Si Gam is better at Acehnese grammar than he is. I responded by saying it's fine if he lets Si Gam worry about the grammar, but that I'm interested in factual accuracy. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have just read this discussion and come to a conclusion that deletion of that article by Si Gam was rather pointy. As a native speaker he could easily fix all error in this short article without resorting to deletion. Anyway the temp adminship of Si Gam will expire on 5 May and there is a chance that it will not be extended. Ruslik (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Now for a hypothetical case: If, say, there is a man named Joe, and he wrote an article on, say, Buddhism but realizes he doesn't want any more Buddhism topics in the wiki he contributes to, the best thing for him to do is to leave the existing ones he made alone and just not write any more. If Joe tries to remove the ones he already did, it just calls more attention to Buddhism and then the community will likely say "keep the articles." So the best choice for him, is to simply ignore what he already wrote. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been one month. The article has been deleted. -- Si Gam (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you delete other articles having them not fixed for a month? The only recent mainspace deletions I see in ace:Kusuih:Ceunatat/Si_Gam are this page (except for a test page you deleted). πr2 (t • c) 19:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Even less than 1 month. -- Si Gam (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Check this also, my former account, ace:Kusuih:Ceunatat/Si_Gam_Acèh. -- Si Gam (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
A solution I suggested is putting the article in Jose77's userspace. It can be worked on there and put back into the mainspace when it's fixed. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Jose77 has declined the proposal en:User_talk:WhisperToMe#Re:_Your_proposal - He's very unhappy with Si Gam Aceh. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship removal

For your consideration, Si Gam currently is the only administrator in Aceh Wikipedia. Is there any guarantee if his adminship is removed or not renewed, the stewards would routinely patrolling Aceh Wikipedia from vandalism, spamming, etc? SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Global help page on account creation

Do we have a global help page, here or on, to which to point users who have problems creating an account, in particular for captcha problems? bugzilla:47801 introduced in MediaWiki:createacct-captcha-help-url a link to Project:Request an account, which of course doesn't exist in 99.99 % of wikis, so if they keep the message we need a target. I'm thinking of a simple generic help page on how to create account and/or a section in it dealing with some specific cases (failed captcha, blocked IP) or processes ("find a sysop on Special:listadmins" is probably the most generic; mw:Extension:ConfirmAccount is one possibility outside our wikis). --Nemo 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that the message has now become Wikimedia-specific but has the same key (details: [3]). --Nemo 07:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Well when it is all worked out, someone can provide a guide and some examples for the admins on the changes and what they need to know to fix. Expectation that each steward can and should read all through that and to guide policy on the run is unreasonable. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Memcache issues for Gadgets across wikis, (Stewards and GS to note)

There was a memcache error yesterday, and it seems that gadget preferences pages are not showing up in some wikis (Bugzilla:48278). The solution is to null edit the respective MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition file. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

d:Wikidata talk:Requests for comment/Bureaucrats' role in removal of permissions#Steward votes

At the suggestion of MBisanz, I'm crossposting this discussion here to start a dialogue regarding best practices with steward involvement in local discussions regarding things like user rights (excluding home wikis, of course). --Rschen7754 12:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I see three separate 'issues' - best practices with 1) non-locally active members' involvement in local discussions 2) stewards' involvement in discussions regarding userrights 3) difference between comment and !vote. 1 and 3 has nothing to do with steward role in particular. For 2 I personally see no issue with stewards' participating in such discussions. To determine local consensus, not to influence local consensus is false, especially the second part. I don't see, particularly in this example, how those participating stewards managed to 'influence' anyone, apart from using their valid arguments. Stewards absolutely need not to be differentiated from any other groups of users on such topics. --Bencmq (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think you can make this separation, especially considering that four non-local stewards managed to !vote on the proposal within 7 hours of each other. And as a !vote has the potential to influence the outcome of a discussion (percentages), yes, that would have the effect of influencing local consensus. --Rschen7754 13:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of admin rights on als, bar and pfl.wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: matters referred back to respective communities, no actions required by stewards — billinghurst sDrewth 16:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think some of you stewards might be interested to look into the outrageous abuse of admin rights by Holder, who blocked Russavia (talk · contribs) on als, bar and pfl Wikipedias without any apparent reason—or, at least, with reasoning that had already been revdeleted and is no longer publicly available.

When one looks into Russavia's contributions on those three *Wikipedias, it is clear that they have never edited any of them too actively, making most of their edits on their own user page (or talk page); there have been very few other edits made on bar.wikipedia. As far as I understand the discussion being held at Nutza Dischkrian:Russavia, one of the reasons for blocking this user was that they have been outed off-wiki (yes — apparently being victim of outing is a good enough reason for getting blocked on three projects).

I'll be looking forward to your involvement in that discussion, hoping that the stewards' authority will help solve the problem in a prompt and consensual manner. odder (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. Russavia acted on Bavarian Wikipedia as a single purpose account to promote polandball, with no will at all to do encyclopedic work. That is reason enough to be blocked. Please look here too, where he showed some similar behavior: [4] --Joe Watzmo (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a low tolerance for bullshit, and I am calling bullshit here. As this and this demonstrate. And all my other edits since October 2012 are adding photos to my userpage; adding redlinks to encourage article development. So yes, I do call bullshit on your claims. Russavia (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked Russavia because of his massive cross-wiki spamming of "polandball", which seems to be "an Internet meme concerning nationalist stereotypes about Poland". Pease have a look at his spam on barwiki, alswiki, and pflwiki. There has never been and there is no other reason for the blocks. --Holder (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
So yes, Russavia, your discussion style is well known. --Joe Watzmo (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of that, hiding block reasons (nutzt Wikipedia für private Werbung und verbreitet nationalistische Äußerungen, siehe Diskussionen, Checkuser und Sperren auf der englischen Wikipedia) isn't that good for transparency either. At least, it could have been updated according to your wishes if you think the block reason was too offensive. It would avoid much confusion. Regards, Vogone talk 20:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I would actually like to know the rationale behind the hiding of that block reason, since none was provided. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
As I see that hiding blocking comments isn't very transparant I've now updated the blocking comment and set a link to the current discussion: "cross-wiki spamming of "polandball", see //". --Holder (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
He claims it was because he thought I might have taken his calling me a nationalist as a personal attack. But I think it had more to do with him flinging shit at me in the hope it would stick. Such his using this SPI as a "checkuser" comment in his block. Also, ask him why, after he deleted a userspace draft in October 2012, and after I have clearly done some minor article work and moving images to Commons, he decided to block me some SEVEN months after the fact. And revoked all talk page and email access so that nothing could be said about it. This is clear abuse. Russavia (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No abuse at all. Holder maybe you should edit the wording of the block reason. Btw, he apologized already for the wording:[/]. But the block is still justified (massive cross wiki spamming, single purpose account, no will and no ability to contribute, he doesn't even speak a single word bavarian). --Joe Watzmo (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That an editor doesn't speak the language in which the wiki is being written is no reason for an indefinite block. odder (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's abuse, and he didn't apologise. This is what he said: "I can understand if you think that my comment is a personal attack, that's why I have hidden that comment. But perhaps you can explain us the discussions, arbitrations, checkusers and expecially the block log of your account on English Wikipedia." He only hid it in relation to him basically calling me a nationalist. It's right there on my talk page. As far as he is concerned that SPI/checkuser was still a valid reason for the block, and he wants answers to it. Russavia (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I did apologize: "I apologize for that block comment". And I never set a link to that SPI page. --Holder (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
So you did not go to the Bavarian Wikipedia for the single purpose of creating and promoting an article on Polandball? --Conti (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No I go to all projects to collaborate. At no time have I asked anyone to do anything that they don't want to do, nor have I asked anyone to create anything that is knowingly false or non-notable. Of course, I made all of this clear in en:User:Russavia/Appeal, didn't I? I bet Holder and crew haven't read that yet. Russavia (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You go to all projects for the single purpose of creating and promoting an article on Polandball and everywhere you have created an article in English in your user namespace. That's what I call "cross-wiki spamming". I think we have to protect small language projects from such cross-wiki spamming. --Holder (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
And most of your work on barwiki, alswiki or pflwiki beside that cross-wiki spamming of Polandball was spamming your user pages with aviation photos. I didn't see any benefit for small language projects in spamming hundreds of aviation photos on a user page. If anybody want's to see or use aviation photos he can go to commons. --Holder (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It is obvious from Russavia's trolling of the email lists, cross wiki abuse, promoting fringe topics and claiming that Commons shouldn't follow the law or policies adopted by the community that he no longer belongs here. Time to open a global ban discussion on him. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Go ahead, then. odder (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Holder The article about Polandball, actually the comic has grown so much and became so popular in the meantime that it is now called Countryballs, is encyclopaedic, has notability. So what is wrong with contributing only one article to Wikipedia? Bavarian or any other one? If everybody wrote only one article, we would have millions articles. In my eyes nothing is wrong with that. You get one article more and that's good. I also don't see anything wrong in asking for help in translation. It is not spamming, spamming is related to marketing and advertisement. And who says that Polandball is nationalistic? Do you have any reliable sources? Government statement or something like this? The article stands on Polish Wikipedia, wikipedians decided to keep it during voting, and Polandball has fans there. It is a comic, meant to make people laugh. And his block, months after editing about Polandball? Why did you apply it so late? Could you explain that? --Seleucidis (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The events on en.wikipedia made clear that Polandball is nationalistic, that it is used to spread disruption on the Wikis, and that Russavia has a major problem in using Polandball to spread disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note If people are going to bring their arguments here, then please take the time to keep it civil and factual. You are all entitled to your opinions, though not necessarily to express them here in the manner in which they have been brought where the current crowd is getting unruly, overly personal, and sometimes just plain insulting. Please lift your standards. This is not a page for your personal biffo competition.

    So if there is a matter that requires a steward's action then please identify that. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not only clear abuse of admin tools, it's an extreme example of it. The excuse given, that the editor has a single focus is absurd, given most editors have a single interest, especially when they begin editing. So show another example of where people have been blocked under this vague catch-all because they edited just one article, you wouldn't have a chance to defend this lame excuse. This is obviously targeting the user specifically for bullshit political reasons. I would not be surprised for a moment to see racism not so much rear it's head again on WMF sites, but be carried as a banner for the world to see, as flag that this project flies. Penyulap (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap, and what's your single purpose? --Holder (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support for Holder. Please see the reputation of Russavia on his home wiki: [5] (with a lot of details about Polandball). Holder is not the only one who blocked him for Polandball spamming. I don't think, there was a discussion at meta about the blocks on en.wp. (Note: a single purpose acount for me is not a user who writes one single article. Russavia did not write any article on als-bar-pfl. And Countryball is not Polandball.) --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Right Ferdl, Russavia did not even make any noteworthy contribution at all. His single purpose was spamming. --Bua333 (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@all: I think this is not the place to discuss if a block on a specific Wikipedia (or even three Wikipedias) is justified or not. Russavia, you can edit your talk pages on barwiki, alswiki, and pflwiki. You and all others are invited to discuss the topic there. --Holder (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

+1. Russavia can explain himself on a case-by-case basis at each location. — Scott talk 09:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Add patrolmarks to Steward global group

The right patrolmarks allows users to see which edits are not patrolled. It has been proposed to grant this permission to the Steward global group, so that it is easier for stewards to check newly created, unpatrolled pages/edits on small wikis, and look for spam or vandalism. This permission is different from patrol, as it doesn't allow users to flag revisions as 'patrolled' - an action that can be considered content-relevant and shouldn't be done by those who do not understand the language or local patrolling guidelines etc.. Comments are welcome :) --Bencmq (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I implemented this. --MF-W 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)