Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2018-04

I would like to file a privacy violation against User:DoRD, who is an admin/OS/CU on English Wikipedia.

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.
Please take the complaint to the Ombudsman Commission. Green Giant (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[]

I would like to file a complaint with respect to privacy violation against User:DoRD. A few days ago, I received a call and letter from my service provider Verizon. In the letter, Verizon legal team claimed that a person, claiming to be a "functionary" on the English Wikipedia, had contacted them about me. They said I have horrendously abused the services of Verizon to commit long term edits in vandalism, hoaxes, and disruptive behavior, costing them numerous hours to verify. Verizon's response said I have nothing to worry about and will ignore this request.

I also received messages on social media from a Travis claiming to be an established user. He said I should stop ediitng and move on with my life. If I didn't, I would be a fool. Presumably, it is t he same person since the RFA of the person is TravisTX, his account. I also am unable to continue writing more since an abuse filter stopped me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018

Except for my former username, none of this is true, of course, but the Ombudsman commission is the place to file a complaint if you must. Cheers —DoRD talk 17:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[]

Global lock

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 matter is being considered on German Wikipedia, which is a more appropriate venue for discussion, because tha is the wiki the user wants to edit on. Green Giant (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[]

I am user:Drüfft. Despite working in the German Wikipedia since 2015, I got locked globally by user:Green Giant because I moved an article. I had no choice of defending myself. At first, I apologize for that maybe thoughtlessly move, and for the inconveniences it caused. The problem is as follows: The bridge got renamed in 2016, and the English, German and Turkish wikipedias already use the official name. I only renamed it to the official name in the other wikipedias, there was no bad intention (this isn't vandalism because it is its actual name, or even vandalism which deserves a global lock). The sockpuppet investigation in the English wikipedia is several years old now, but I edit in the German Wikipedia without major problems since then and don't use any sockpuppets. In the German Wikipedia they know about my history, and the checkuser from then, too. It is also not fair locking me globally for things I did more than two years ago, because since then, I don't use several accounts. You can lock any other account related to me which aren't already locked. I neither need them nor use them. Could you unlock me in the English wikipedia and globally if I promise not to move that page? The lock is several years old and I don't use sockpuppets anymore. It would be nice if I had at least access to my watchlist. I created more than Thousand articles over the time.

As steward Green Giant said it on his talkpage, he is ready to unlock me if the German wikipedia administrators are agreeing with it. @Man77, Otberg, and Koenraad: (he is Administrator in the German Wikipedia) said that you can unlock me, see at Von mir aus kann ein Admin dich entsperren. --2003:C3:33E6:B418:18F3:2B10:1B77:7896 19:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[]

As your last lines could be misunderstood: I did not say you should be unlocked, and Koenraad is much rather indifferent about your account than ready to unlock you. → «« Man77 »» [de] 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[]
If I understand correctly, it is a case of parole violation? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[]
@Incnis Mrsi and Green Giant: I don't think it is parole violation because those edits were formally correct as I explained above.--2003:C3:33E6:B449:91DC:151D:2CF3:A963 10:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Hmm... I had thought you might put forward an honest case but it seems you continue to present only the problems you want to show. The account lock isn't just about the bridge but it is about the wider difficulty you have in editing without causing disruption.
  • The sockpuppet investigation was just two years ago, not several years ago;
  • You are currently blocked on four wikis:
You have also been blocked four times in the last six months on German Wikipedia, and Goelia is blocked on three wikis - that is a major problem in anyone's book. Drüfft/Goelia, you are clearly incapable of being honest with us. Green Giant (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[]
"Several years" and "major problems" are relatively sentences which I only used to defend and justify myself. Calling the use of it "dishonesty" is as unfair as counting every single mistake which I did. So @Green Giant: tell me: What shall I do then in order to gain your trust?--- 08:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
So you don’t think it’s a problem for the wider Wikimedia community that you have got yourself blocked on four wikis and have been blocked several times on a fifth wiki? It is the trust of the wikis you need to regain, not my trust. If any of these wikis, you are blocked on, speaks up on your behalf, then we can move towards unlocking your account. You’ve tried with German Wikipedia, but you misrepresented an administrators words (indifference is not support). 09:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Man77: "Von mir aus kann ein Admin dich entsperren." means: "From my side, an Admin can unlock you". This is not a misinterpretation. @Green Giant: Otherwise, it is an impossible task. Most Admins don't even react. What shall he say instead? Shall he beg for an unlock?--2003:C3:33E6:B468:7C64:BB87:3034:A922 14:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
As a bystander, the user in the locked account should shove off for a while, learning that if you repeatedly abuse the trust of the community that there are consequences. If the consequences are not liked, then maybe the user should learn a bit quicker about abuse of trust. Being locked is problematic, though this is a clear case where the next step would be a community ban, and that would mean every time blocked on sight. So tell the user to come back in a year and have a more amenable approach to working in a community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]

I’ve tried my best to explain to you but you don’t seem to understand. As suggested above by User:billinghurst, go do something else for a year and think about why you have been blocked by so many wikis and subsequently locked. This time next year, if you want to edit constructively, come back and ask for the lock to be lifted. If you do edit using another account during this year, I’ll have no choice but to lock that account and refuse to unlock any of your accounts. Green Giant (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[]

Misuse of Userrights at Hindi Wikipedia

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.
Our responsibility according to the Stewards page is "responsibility for technical implementation of community consensus and for dealing with emergencies such as cross-project vandalism." None of this includes arbitrating on user conduct. There is no global arbitration committee, and we (Stewards) are not a de-facto global arbitration committee. Here is not a correct place to present your issues. — regards, Revi 07:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[]

Hello @Stewards, There are some userrights misusing at hi.wikipedia . On 13:51, 25 March 2018, User:हिंदुस्थान वासी has blocked me for 2 hours.

13:51, 25 मार्च 2018 हिंदुस्थान वासी (चर्चा | योगदान) ने Jayprakash12345 (चर्चा | योगदान) को २ घंटे के लिए अवरोधित कर दिया। (खाता निर्माण पर रोक) (उत्पातपूर्ण गतिविधियाँ)


Why Block

User:हिंदुस्थान वासी was redirecting Old page (Created in 2008) to New Page (Created in 2012). I noticed that And as Patroller I reverted User:हिंदुस्थान वासी's edit. He reverted my edit. In this edit war, We both made 3-3 edits. So how is this right redirect old page to the new one? I told him to wait for someone else. But he did not.

Misusing of userrights

In every edit war, I assume both users has the equaliy fault. Edit war is another matter. Here the matter is misusing User Rights. I would like to tell you some local established policy.

  • Accouding to Blocy Policy, "विशेषाधिकार रखने वाले सदस्यों को कम से कम ३ बार चेतावनी अवश्य दें" means the user who have special rights on, can't be blocked until he exceeds 3 warning. User:हिंदुस्थान वासी violate this policy. He did not give any warning to me.
  • Accouding to Misusing of userrights and Sysop tools, "जहा आप खुद ऐसे वार्तालाप या शिकायत का हिस्सा हो।" means If you are involved yourself in any Matter then you can't take action on those matters, you have to wait for another sysop to take actions. But this sysop blocked me. where he involved himself.
You can see clearly that sysop misuse his rights for their own favour. All active sysop Condemned this actions
  1. Sysop User:Anamdas ([2])
  2. Sysop User:संजीव कुमार ([3])
  3. Sysop User:अजीत कुमार तिवारी ([4])
  4. Sysop User:अनिरुद्ध! ([5])
अजीत कुमार तिवारी and अनिरुद्ध! Sugesst for block 2-24 hours on हिंदुस्थान वासी due to misuse of user rights. But did not have crat. So action on locally can't be proceed. This is not first for See Requests for comment/Userrights on Hindi Wikipedia, Last time all the Stewards were came together to stop sysop and crats. Now Second time has come.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 16:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Note for Stewards - This user is a very immature person. He also open discussion on User:संजीव कुमार last year for trivial reason. He takes all things on personal level. He behave like a spoiled child. If he doesn't get his way he start throwing tantrums all round. So I request to not take this user seriously. I will respond to this later when I get more time and show you more proofs.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 16:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Hindust@ni Are you sure? You followed Blocy Policy and Misusing of userrights and Sysop tools. And here you want to say You blocked me for past behaviuor with User:संजीव कुमार. First, read the Topic name, Here is the discussion about your wrong decision.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Your English is very weak. I'm afraid I didn't said what you are understanding. I will talk to you in Hindi when required.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
  •   Comment Closing discussion. Hindi Wikipedia is able to manage their own circumstances, and it is not within the scope of stewards to intervene on the case of a block. Please address your issues through hiWP resolution processes.— billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[]
billinghurst Here case is not about block. The matter is violation of established policy. And more about harassment. We have not crat who can block him for 2-24 hours.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 00:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[]
@Jayprakash12345: Bureaucrats have no special ability to block (see hi:Special:ListGroupRights), that is the domain of administrators. Issues for the management of hiWP belong at hiWP, they are a self-managing wiki; so violations of their local policy is theirs to manage. There is nothing for stewards to do unless hiWP has a community consensus that requires stewards to act to remove or give rights. You misunderstand the role of stewards, they do not have an interventionist role.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Then there is no group of peoples who looks upon harassment. You can see even here Hindust@ni is doing personal attack on me see He is using spoiled child like word.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 05:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[]
I would agree with you that the words of the user were uncomplimentary and appear unnecessary. That said, it doesn't change the fact that this has to be resolved at hiWP. Stewards have a certain role, that role is not to manage local wikis, nor to try to arbitrate local wiki issues. Please take your matter to hiWP for resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[]

IP block exempt on English Wikipedia

A while ago, I posted here (7832831) because even though I have global IP block exemption, I'm still being caught in local blocks on the English Wikipedia. I was declined IP block exempt there, because I do not have consistent edits, but that is not possible, since I cannot really edit due to the block in itself. What can I do? --DeeM28 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[]

We do not interfere with local administrator's decision. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do. — regards, Revi 06:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Template:Ping-revi I do not understand, can global IP block exemption not also exempt me from local blocks? If not, what is the point of it. --DeeM28 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[]
@DeeM28: global IP block exemption exempts you blocks. Local projects can set their own blocking policies, etc - as has occurred here. — xaosflux Talk 17:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[]
I granted you an IP block exemption on enwiki. Ruslik (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[]
This subject matter is covered at GIPBE ... This permission allows the user to bypass global IP blocks, rangeblocks and TOR exit node blocks, but not local IP blocks and rangeblocks; for which a local IP block exemption is needed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Thank you very much, @Ruslik: and all for helping! --DeeM28 (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[]
This section was archived on a request by: a local project admin resovled. — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[]

WMDE Technical Wishes/Rollback/Feedback round

A significant change to the rollback function is being discussed above. --Rschen7754 05:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[]

Block-evasion spree

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)[]

Chronic cross wiki vandalism by big IP ranges

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:,,, and
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 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], 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)[]

Thank you NicoScribe for this report.
I add several projects and IP.
Others projects affected:,, and ar.wikinews
Others IP detected (incomplete list):
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 ([11]), which appears to be the filter in question, given its name "إضافة أرقام متتالية" (auto-translate : "Add consecutive numbers") and abusefilter-log for : [12].
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)[]

  Done by the global filter 167 and by some abusefilters on big wiki --Alaa :)..! 11:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[]

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 11:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Sockpuppetry around Wendell Brown?

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)[]