Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2016-05

Abuse by sysops on Wikispecies

The WS sysops are abusing their powers, specifically using threats of CU as a political tool to enforce territoriality and keep unwanted contributors away (see relevant CU policy here). They haven't even bothered to ask User:Bioref if they are the same person as User:stho002! Surely that should be the first thing to do? Only if the sockpuppetry is denied is it necessary to perform a CU. Anyway, please look at the linked discussion here.

In particular, note the "crimes" that Bioref is accused of, e.g. "He's back now and he still uses formatting unacceptable by WS. See for example Pheidole protaxi and Megaselia bisticta - edits which he made today." Now I know stewards probably know little of WS subject matter and formatting, but looking at Pheidole protaxi, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it! Bioref has simply created a page for a species and added the name with a link to the original reference for that name! Can somebody please explain to me why this is "unacceptable formatting", and why this justifies the continued hounding and threats of CU against Bioref when they are just trying to make contributions in good faith? Note that there was no edit war on this article, Bioref is the sole contributor at this time. If someone wants to change the formatting, or whatever, then they can do so. So what is going on here???

What, if anything, can be done to stop this madness on WS?

Stho002 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[]

PS: I would also like to draw attention to this diff, in which User:Tommy Kronkvist says, in the context of a discussion about the 500K edits of User:stho002: "Also, there are tools to rather easily delete every page creation made by a single user, although I would strongly advise against using them".

If he sincerely advised against use of these "tools", why would he even mention it? So, we have here a clear desire to retrospectively destroy the entire set of contributions by a contributor who the local community has turned against! That can't be justified, can it? I suspect that there are no such tools, and that he is just thinking of "Nuke", which would achieve little or nothing in this case, but we neverthless have here a sysop who doesn't know what they are talking about and who is trying to put ideas into the heads of other sysops who he thinks might be inclined to "push the red button", so to speak! This is further proof of the rotten sysop mob which now has control over WS. Stho002 (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Now we have this diff, which is a massive overreaction to accounts which are making nothing but constructive edits to the project, i.e. not disruptive edits in any shape or form! Stho002 (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Do these accounts belong to you? Ruslik (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[]
Yes. I was blocked unfairly in a coup d'état, so I continued to contribute constructive edits the only way possible, by alternative accounts. I had no intention to disrupt or deceive, and if anyone had asked me, I would have answered them honestly as I have now just done with you. Please point out any disruptive aspects of my recent edits. Please note this diff, whereby crat Dan Koehl says [quote]Ill take the needed contacts regarding this issue, and ask for an IP-range block, unless someone else already did[unquote]. This betrays their real agenda, which is to exclude as many potential contributors as possible from "their wiki". There is absolutely no need for an IP range block, as I edit from a single IP. Also, they cannot know otherwise without being privy to private CU information detailing underlying IPs! All that I am doing is waiting for the autoblock to expire and then going back under another account. I do this in good faith, with the purpose of contributing useful information to the project. I do not understand why they are trying so hard to exclude me. If my actions here are wrong in any way, please explain to me why so, and I will make every effort to cooperate with you. If, for reasons I don't understand, you think that Wikimedia is better off without my contributions, then so be it. I just want to get this issue sorted out fairly, once and for all. I have tried to continue to make constructive contributions to WS despite years of abuse and obstruction by a group of about a dozen other editors/sysops who turn against anyone who doesn't go along with them ... Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[]
In fact, I pretty much implore you, for the sake of all the future generations of people who may want to contribute to and/or learn from WS, to look at this issue seriously and please not just take the easiest option to making it go away. Wikimedia sites come up high on the list of Google searches, people do look to them for information, so they need to be kept clean of dirty politics whereby contributors are blocked just because others in the community have mobbed together against them to prevent them from contributing useful information, the mob trying to reserve everything for themselves. The core issue here is that certain contributors at WS want to reserve areas for themselves only to edit. I edit widely, which brings me into their "territory", which causes all the trouble, but my understanding of Wikimedia sites is that editors cannot reserve areas for themselves, and that anyone can freely contribute constructively to any article at any time. Please let me know if I am wrong about this, because it is what I am fighting for. Stho002 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[]
With comments like this, it's no wonder they don't want you contributing to that project. A lot of people get the impression that their (admittedly impressive) content contributions make them immune to behaving like reasonable people on the internet. That is not the case. Please stop using meta as a platform to launch these anti-establishment tirades, we are a project for movement-wide coordination, not this. It's also worth noting that stewards have no mandate whatsoever to take-over projects just because one user with a history of abusive behaviour wants us to. As to the specific concern raised, there are no checkusers on Wikispecies, so there is no possibility for abuse of that tool there. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[]
While I appreciate your advice, and will try to take it on board, I feel as though you have quoted me out of context. That comment I made was the result of a sustained period of "poking the bear" by a mob of agressively territorial WS editors and sysops. I know that I should not have bitten back, but sorry I'm not perfect, and there is only so much prodding that I can take without biting back. Also, I am not asking stewards to intervene at WS. I am primarily asking them not to get involved in CU requests which are clearly being used as a political tool to enforce territoriality and exclude contributors (e.g. me) from WS. Such use of CU is in contravention of CU policy. The agenda of the WS mob is clear enough. We all know what they want (they have hinted at it often enough).

I also draw your attention to this diff from April 2015, specifically: User:OhanaUnited to User:Dan_Koehl " I certainly hope you would stop this character assassination. Regardless of my level of activity, this is not a justification for Dan's unilateral decision process which includes providing a bot flag for an unapproved bot and providing an admin flag for a bot account without going through proper channel (plus many more questionable conduct). In any other major projects, this kind of action would have immediately be desysopped and decratted. Sadly, Dan and his enablers have assembled a critical mass to remove an editor (Stho002) who is not afraid of asking difficult questions. After Stho002 was gone, I have some editors who contacted me privately stating that they have likewise ceased editing and left this project. A few others said in private communication that they also disagree with Dan's actions but never make it public for the fear of reprisal from Dan's group of editors. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)"[]

I saw it. There is nothing we can do here. Please stop using multiple accounts to evade a community ban on that project. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[]
You say "there are no checkusers on Wikispecies, so there is no possibility for abuse of that tool there", which is true, but they will come here in a couple of days, begging stewards for an IP range block, and talking up my innocuous constructive edits to sound like major disruption. Can I be confident that no steward is going to be gullible enough to fall for their manipulations? You say "Please stop using multiple accounts to evade a community ban on that project", but you haven't given me either a reason why I should not continue to make constructive edits at WS, any way I can, or any indication of what the consequences might be if I do continue. I am prepared to cooperate with you, but you need to at least make it seem like you are trying to do what is best rather than just what is easiest. Stho002 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[]
You aren't contributing, you're continuing to push whatever POV you have on the articles in a way that the community obviously doesn't appreciate. There would also be no manipulation happening, since you are abusing multiple accounts to bypass a community ban and make non-constructive edits. That is justification for a check. But they haven't requested it yet, and I've cautioned them on their village pump thread that we don't check based on a vote and that they would need to demonstrate abusive use of multiple accounts first. But we're done here; this isn't a matter to notify stewards about, and it's time to stop using meta as a sounding board for issues on other projects. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]
Well excuse me for thinking that Meta is an appropriate place to bring up serious problems in Wikimedia projects, i.e. seriously rotten political behaviour by WS sysops. You also don't seem to have really looked into the matter any, for you say [quote]You aren't contributing, you're continuing to push whatever POV you have on the articles in a way that the community obviously doesn't appreciate[unquote]! This makes no sense at all! WS articles don't have POV issues, they are of a different nature altogether. An article typically just gives a species name and cites the original reference for that species name. Truth is that they resent my ability to make a bigger contribution than they can manage. That is all there is to it. I challenge you to support your claim "...and make non-constructive edits". I contend that my edits (save for a rare bite back to prodding) are self-evidently overwhelmingly constructive. Please indicate clearly why you think otherwise. Stho002 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Wikimedia is brought into disrepute if it is seen to be controlled by sysop mobs who exclude other contributors and have full control over content and who can or cannot contribute. This is an extremely serious issue which threatens the very core of Wikimedia credibility. I am saddened that no steward appears to have the integrity to address these serious issues or to escalate them to the attention of WMF (who also seem not to care, so long as, unlike stewards, they keep getting paid) Stho002 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Insulting our integrity won't help. This is your last warning to stop using meta as your personal soapbox. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]
I didn't insult the integrity of stewards, I questioned it. I hope that you can understand the difference. I will question anyone's integrity if the need arises, so why would should stewards be immune? Do you think that you are right simply because you are a steward and I am not? Also, "my last warning ..."?? I didn't see you give me a first warning! I am not using meta as a personal soapbox at all! I simply thought that such serious abuses of sysop powers at WS ought to be fought against, and I assumed, wrongly it would now appear, that stewards would take the matter seriously. Well, I have done all that I can do now, for the greater good, to try to rectify the disgraceful state of affairs at WS, so I can sleep easy. Can you? Stho002 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]
And on the subject of things that won't help, I would place firmly in that category making unfounded accusations based on ignorance of the facts, like "You aren't contributing, you're continuing to push whatever POV you have on the articles in a way that the community obviously doesn't appreciate". Where did you get that from?? You are just making the story up as you go along! There is no such thing as POV in WS articles, as you should know. The only thing that the community doesn't appreciate is someone who can make a bigger contribution that they are capable of, and who contributes in areas that they have reserved for themselves. The truth is indeed very difficult to deal with, but trying to twist it all into my fault so that you can "solve" the problem at the push of a button by blocking me doesn't exactly paint you in a very positive light. Get some responsibility. Do what is right, not what is easiest. Stho002 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]
It is not clear if OhanaUnited <-> Stho002. Ruslik (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]
@Ruslik0: @Ajraddatz: Wtf is that supposed to imply??? If you like, I will apply for a CU to disprove any links between the two underlying IPs for those two accounts! This was exactly the strategy of the WS mob, i.e. anybody who disagreed with them was therefore in collusion with me. Such a claim is difficult to prove either way, which makes it useful agenda rhetoric. What's your agenda Ruslik?? Stho002 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]
You posted a comment above from OhanaUnited without a signature of your own. It wasn't clear that you were just quoting him. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]
Well, his signature was within the quote! So let me make it perfectly clear: I was "just" quoting him. I was giving evidence, in the form of a diff, which indicates that I am not the only one who has spoken out against the disgraceful conduct and massive sysop abuse aimed at me by certain people at WS. Is that clear enough? Stho002 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[]
Got a notification from the ping by someone mentioning my name here. @Ruslik0: I'm not Stho002. I'm Canadian. Stho002 is New Zealander. Please withdraw that comment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[]
I did not make a comment. I asked a question because what appeared to be a quote looked strange to me. I got the answer that you are not related to Stho002. Ruslik (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Just one final example from me of the inane behaviour being exhibited at WS: see this diff for a typical edit by WS crat User:Tommy_Kronkvist. I can only assume that this extreme form of pedantry is a symptom of Anankastic Personality Disorder, particularly "unreasonable insistence by the patient that others submit to exactly his or her way of doing things". Most of my edits on WS, which they consider to be "disruptive", involve trivial format issues of the same order of magnitude as the example that I have just given. They have blown it up out of all proportion, and used it to block me out of WS. I think these people need professional psychological help ... Stho002 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[]

And another similar edit by User:MPF, which he describes as a "format error" by me! Incidentally, User:MPF has previously publicly accused me on WS of a crime (copyright violation, i.e. "Additionally, the reproduction of almost the entire Contents of the Auckland Botanical Society Journal here (example subpage with full verbatim reproduction of the contents of Vol. 69 here), New Zealand Journal of Zoology ISSN 0301-4223, and other journals. While citation of individual papers as references is of course permissible where relevant to the nomenclature or taxonomy of a particular taxon, reproduction of the entire contents pages represents breach of copyright of the journals concerned"), which is libelous drivel. Just for clarification, I consulted Dr. Donat Agosti, an expert on these matters, who replied "Dear Stephen, This is the answer from our legal department ... In copyright, you can rarely say, that something is clear. In this special case, it is absolutely clear: no copyright breach at all". Stho002 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC) In summary, these people are not right in the head, but yet, as WS sysops, they hold undue control and influence on the availability of information to future generations seeking knowledge from the web. Again I implore stewards to take this matter seriously, as it threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole Wikimedia ethos ...Stho002 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[]
  • And we still can't do anything about it, so you might as well stop wasting your time here. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Requests for comment/Sysop abuse on Russian Wikipedia 2

OneLittleMouse used de-adminship. 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[]

No action needed from us here. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Kontrola aktywności administratorów

I would like to inform all interested parties that the Polish Wiktionary (Wikisłownik) does have its own rules for depriving sysops of their rights. They are formulated here and they say: “Wikipedyści mogą utracić uprawnienia administracyjne przez ich nadużycie, na własną prośbę oraz procedurę RFC” (full stop), which means that inactivity is not a sufficient reason to deprive sysops of their rights. Please, do find yourself something more useful to do. With all due respect, Ksymil (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]

The Admin Activity Review is for projects without a local policy. Since you have one, then there is no need to be included in the global process. Regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]
Well, the problem is that despite this lack of necessity, admins’ activity is still being controlled, like exactly now by Openbk (see the link at the very beginning), who refuses to acknowledge that a closed catalogue of actions leading to depriving an admin of their rights (inactivity not being included!) means at the time that everything else is not a sufficient reason. To list all actions that do not lead to depriving an admin of their rights (like playing table-tennis barefoot, and millions of other) is simply absurd, which he also refuses to understand. Ksymil (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]
It's not his fault. This was determined by a global RfC, but projects can opt-out as they wish, as plwikt has now done. And for the purposes of AAR, any edit or log action within the last two years is considered to be "active". Ajraddatz (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]
The problem seems to have just been settled. Thank you very much for your time and I'm sorry to have bothered you. Ksymil (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Media wiki Sitenotice can't load

Hi I have a bug with mw:sitenotice in map-bmswiki. Can you fix it. Thanks Murbaut (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Done I already see.Thanks Murbaut (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[]