Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2021-07

Stop abuse and violence in Fawiki by checkusers

Hi Dear.

I sent a complaint to OC and reported that my account " shahramrashidi" has been blocked and banned in Fawiki as nominating Sockpuppetry, without any evidence. Even the user checking has not been requested by any in check user page. But the checkusers have blocked my account according to doubt only as their declaration. Which policy of WP tell you can block unlimited any user without evidence and with doubt only.

This is the response of OC: "The Commission is responsible for investigating complaints about infringements of the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic personal data policy, the CheckUser policy, and the Oversight policy, on any Wikimedia project. The OC pays close attention to policies and their violations. Regarding the complaint relating to the block of User:Shahramrashidi for sockpuppet, the commission has found no violation of any of the aforementioned policies.

Shahramrashidi was blocked according to the Persian Wikipedia's (fawiki) sockpuppetry policy, which provides that a sockpuppet can be blocked without needing to identify the "sockmaster". The Commission is not an appeals body for blocks. The local community's appeal processes should be used in this case."

How do i tell and prove my account is not sockpuppet and the response of OC is about sockpuppet user only, then when my account is not sockpuppet, this policy is not applicable for my account. I asked OC to check my account is not sockpuppet and check users have abused from their facility and access, but instead of checking my account and their action has replied as a/m.

Also I wrote to stewards but got response as :"The stewards are not superior to fa.wikipedia functionaries. You need to appeal their decision to them. The stewards cannot help you in that case."

I know stewards can check my account for Sockpuppetry and can checj the right use of checkuser in fawiki. Then please check and find their abuse. My account is blocked completly, how can i to appeal in fawiki?

My question is can any check users block and ban any account as sockpuppet even it not to be sockpuppet? Who check this and stop their abuse? My account is not sockpuppet and check users abuse from their access. Please check my account in Fawiki and if my account to be sockpuppet, block me in all wiki projects else stop their abuse. please stop abuse from fawiki. i am ready to provide any document to prove my account is not sockpuppet and there is no any supervision on fawiki check users. Please return credit to fawikiShahramrashidi (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: Farsi Wikipedia is an self-contained and self-regulated wiki that has its rules and processes. Stewards and global rights holders cannot help you. You will need to follow any information that is at that wiki relating to blocks. Nothing can be done at this page. This is not the place for your questions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said on Jimbo's talk page. I didn't mean the Stewards could override the local CUs. I meant that an FA speaking Steward might be willing to help you understand why the fa.wiki CUs think you are a sockpuppet and how you might be able to prove you aren't. That's because the local CU could, if they were willing, discuss the private data with the Steward and that they, as a neutral party, might be able to defuse the situation from your belief that this is "abuse". However, for this to happen you'd have to persuade both parties to help out and that would start with you moderating your tone and not accusing people of bad faith. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst @QuiteUnusual The block was double checked by another CU and endorsed. The user is clearly a sock for numerous reasons we can't disclose publicly and has been causing issues like so much disruptive editing in AN that we had to protect it. Just ignore this if you ask me. Amir (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@billinghurst, @QuiteUnusual Ok. Then Let us check it. Ladsgroup has blocked me without any evidance and without any request in Sockpuppet investigations page. I asked him, to provide any evidence without confidence problem for public. I haven't problem with this and even i am ready to give my real information, but he never gave it. The another CU checked and told there is no technical evidence and it my be edition like to others. I asked them to provide any similar edition if there is any. Even asked to define main account if my account is sock but they never had any. Currently, after complaint to OC they asked me to appeal in Fa.wiki, But as there is no arbitration committee in Fawiki, I asked in AN by IP and my sign (because my account is blocked and haven't another account)from community and managers to check all documents to be proved i am not sock and to check action of CU for blocking to prove his abuse. He closed my note on AN while he is involved manager. I wrote again he in involved and cant close my request but he closed again and mentioned i am banned user (He declared me am banned, but as policy one can't ban any user alone and community can ban a user), Then he limited edition in AN 2days ago to prevent me from note about him and this is not related to his action in some month ago. His actions is against some of policy and he do'te let anyone to check it. Also as the CU access peridod in fawiki is unlimited anyone can't supervise on CU, Then he abuses this access and i ask his action to be checked. I never had any disruptive editing and if they have any evidence, i ask them to provide. Please check the closed accounts in fawiki and compare with request for check user in Sockpuppet investigations then it will be wonderful for you. Also for your information, as i know and checked there is no perisan language steward in stewards list to solve this.Shahramrashidi (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to do with global sysops. Nothing to do with the stewards. You can only resolve your issue with the administrators and checkusers at Farsi Wikipedia. There is no appeal system outside a wiki, they are self-contained and self-regulated. There is no higher authority.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@billinghurst How can i appeal in Fa.wiki while he don't let me to write any and close all of my requests to solution by managers. He is involved but closes all. Is not this abuse? How can i write while He has closed my talk page and limited edition for IPs in AN. Administrators tell they haven't supervision on CU and OC can check only. There is no any arbitration commission in Persian wiki. Their is AN board only which he don't let for any my request. And all know there is no any supervision in CU in Persian wiki. Then they are god of Persian wiki. consider yourself instead of me and please let me know how to solve this in wiki? Shahramrashidi (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I cannot read Farsi, so you will have to look at that Wikipedia and their unblock and appeal processes. Apart from that, if we say that there is no authority to act from outside the wiki and there is no pathway for others to change your block at faWP, what do you think we are actually saying to you? Are we saying ask more questions? Do we say give us more commentary about this. Did you read the two pages that I linked that explained what the two roles can do, and did you see any authority to act in this space? There is no authority to act from outside the wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I know you can't read Farsi, but you may translate it by google if you want to do it. I have looked at that Wikipedia and their unblock policy in last. The Policy let Arbitration committee to check action of CU. But as there is no Arbitration committee in Persian wiki, It says OC must check it. I sent my complaint to OC but you may find their response in above. They don't check it. Then, the policy have problem and the CU uses this without any supervision. You also may find the response of CU in above. How can i use in wiki when there is no any solution for it and CU is all. How CU can check my complaint about him. yes I ask you my questions Because of they abuse from this policy(which haven't any solution for checking of CU action). Yes i looked and read all pages you mentioned and saw there is no authority to act from outside the wiki. But if the wiki has no policy to check action of CU else community to talk about it where CU removes all request for talking about him and block, then what is the result and how can i tell to community to check it. He closes all without any response to any committee or community. Do you think if there is any policy for checking of CU in wiki, am i mad to come here and write for you and waste my time? I am very busy man but can't see any abuse in WP. If you ca'nt supervise to action of CU in wikis and there is no any policy in wiki for this, please amend your policy in order to supervision to them. Please, please, please take a note there is no policy to check abuse of CU in wiki. you may find the policy at here and main in English. CU has put a comment here, ask him to let my request on ANB for community decision. Why he dont let me to ask this and block all of my request. I have no any access to tell this even he has blocked ANB edition by IP to prevent me from any action and request for his abuse checking.Shahramrashidi (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You clearly haven't the pages to which you were pointed that shows what are the respective roles of stewards and global sysops. There is no ability for stewards to do as you wish, they do not set policy. Policies are set by the community through consensus, typically through an RFC; or through the Wikimedia Foundation. The process for global policy development doesn't even sit with global rights holders.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see this: "ویکی‌بدها نمی‌توانند سر خود تصمیم به خلع دسترسی بگیرند اما می‌توانند به جمع‌آوری اطلاعات در خصوص سوءاستفاده کمک کنند (مثلاً با بررسی سیاهه‌ها)." You may translate it but is here:"Stewards can not decide to deny access on their own, but they can help gather information about abuse (for example, by checking logs)." then stewards can check abuse in use of tools in blocking and check their evidence as information gathering. In here the second check user states clearly asks me to Confess i am sock. If there is any evidence then why asks about it?Shahramrashidi (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw @Mardetanha: is steward in Persian language. I pinged and ask him to help here please. He never has told any about my request and i think he can tell about CU policy in Persian language and their evidence about my blocking.Shahramrashidi (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

CheckUser policy#Removal of access is the cited document, there is nothing that allows stewards to do anything as you describe for you. QuiteUnusual suggested you chat outside of here with a steward if they were willing to assist, so go and do it. I still see no authority for stewards to act, nor do anything. They definitely cannot undo your block.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I sent him(persian stewrad) an email in last but he never replied me. Then you tell me that CU is god of wiki and anyone cant tell him still. You recommend me to solve it in wiki but i am blocked. Can i solve it in wiki.? I wrote here to stop abuse of forever CU but you send me to him again. Who must stop a CU which don't let me to write and ask community to talk about him. This is wrong policy. If you want i to solve in wiki, ask CU to let me write in community for community opinion. Else this abuse will never be stopped.Shahramrashidi (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also about declaration of ladsgroup (CU which blocked me and abused from his access without reason) in above, i ask @Huji: (Another check user which told there is no technical evidence and asked me to confess i am sock to explain about my blocking.Shahramrashidi (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: I am very sorry, but so long as you change my words I have a hard time assuming good faith about you and am not willing to participate in this discussion. I never said "there is no technical evidence" and never asked you to "confess" about anything. This level of dishonesty on your part may have contributed to the situation you are in. Huji (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Huji: I never changed your words and gave your words links in first for any clarification (it is here again). Sorry but i also have hard time assuming good faith about you. If you didn't tell it, please let us know what did you tell. I gave your link in above as goodwill and this is your another response about technical -Trasnlation:"Not all access permissions rely on technical evidence. Some rely on behavioral evidence and even writing style. This evidence is not publicly stated because the sock user can change the method". If you mean another please let me know. Also why you don't give me any evidence if you have. I haven't problem if you to give any you want and i am ready to talk in real with any to prove this. If you are honest and have goodwilling, please give any evidence in public ( i am satisfied about it) or let community to review your action. Why Ladsgroup closes all of my request to appeal from community? Is this good faith which you talk about it? Is this much which i want to prove my account is not sock and ladsgroup closed me because of his abuse certain article without any checking request? Which of my edition had problem which you nominate me as sock without ant main account please? If you are honest really please give your any evidence. Please clear which account is main if i am sock. I also ask you to be honest please. It is not big request. Sorry but please Convince me and all. I am not WP lover and if you don't like me to edit in wiki, tell go easily, why you attribute sock to me. I made some of articles in Fawiki and Enwiki and hope it to be useful for all. Keep WP for yourself you dont like any new editor to come here. Thanks Shahramrashidi (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment@Shahramrashidi: Take this elsewhere, it does not belong on this page. Use the talk pages of people involved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The perfect space would be the user's talk page at faWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

My access to talk page is blocked. This is why i am here and ask you to stop abuse of check user. They don't let me talk in fawiki even in my talk page. Is not this abuse? Tell me where i can take this? Shahramrashidi (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also i told all and all is clear. There is no any more. They haven't any evidence. Then why my account must be closed. Consider we talked in my talk page and now finished. Do they unblock my account now? Or continue still?Shahramrashidi (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi You were told several times stewards or other global functionaries cannot help you. I've blocked you for 2 weeks, as I consider bringing Persian Wikipedia disputes to Meta as disruption. Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing more to be said at this point. Closing via {{section resolved}}. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for unblock

Dear admin. Recently, my Wikimedia common’s account was blocked as correctly. I admit my wife's mistake. This has really been one of understanding and consequence. I never intended to destroy. I work to improve the sports level of Wikipedia and write useful articles. I am a photographer and journalist and needs my photos to be uploaded next to my article. Please help to reactivate my account. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@MMA Kid: You are blocked at Commons by Commons admin, you will need to sort it out at Commons. Stewards cannot assist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Crosswiki Spam (Frank Mortenson & Edwin Symonowicz)

I recently received a request to delete crosswiki spam. The spammer came back the next day, so I looked at the troll and found that it seems to be an LTA. I have found an old SRM request (here) and some socks: en:Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Birdsflyinghigh123, Special:CentralAuth/Gaingroo and many IPs. Has anyone observed this troll yet? Should we add these names to the title blacklist?--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 11:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/286 A new abusefilter for this Troll--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Remove English Wikiquote from GS opt-out

Status:    Not done

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Village_pump#Removing_Wikiquote_from_Global_Sysops_opt-out_list

As of writing, excluding myself, I see three clear supports, a weak oppose and a standard oppose. I will leave it to you to decide whether this represents sufficient consensus. Leaderboard (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done No clear consensus. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

SRG archives

The current SRG archive is >600 kB and over 1000 threads long. Time to set up by-week archives? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

ruwikinews will lose global abuse filters tomorrow

Hi,

ruwikinews has grown in size very rapidly over the past month and is now a "large" wiki in terms of size. We currently don't enable global abuse filters on large wikis, and as a result, they will be disabled when we recategorize it by deploying gerrit:708364 tomorrow. I'm posting this as notification in some abuse filters need to be copied over locally. I apologize for the short notice, but ruwikinews has grown so rapidly that this is starting to get untenable. Legoktm (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the change due to performance issues with having the global abusefilter enabled on a wiki with so many pages/edits to check? Another case of a small wiki importbot I see... – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Legoktm: I didn't understand the initial implementation rule to be cast in stone. There are number of large wikis that have global abuse filters, so I would prefer that the implementation be that wikis can request its removal, rather than it be automatic. Couldn't part of the changeover to large wiki also include writing it into the rules that they are left in global AF like enWS and frWP?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst I had forgotten that we do have some large wikis with global filters enabled, but I'm not really confident with the current situation around ruwikinews. Let me ask the AbuseFilter maintainers what they think/recommend. Legoktm (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Legoktm If it is simply a mechanical change, and not part of a community pushed changed, I would prefer if we could have a default position of global filters ON into the future, where the migration to large wikis have the configuration that keeps them in GAF, they have not proved problematic and we now have the used capability to exclude wikis by both language and sisterhood. If there is communication with such a wiki prior to the migration, then let us broach the question at the time so there is that choice available. Looking at n:ru:Special:Anbuselog is showing very low false positives, so I would say that the GAF are performing beneficially at this time. [Personally I see that many of the large wikis would do well to migrate to GAF, at least at a logging no action level, however, that is each of their's calls.] @Krassotkin: to flag this conversation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I spoke with Daimona earlier today who said it should be fine to leave global filters enabled on ruwikinews and other large wikis in general, so I'll do that before deploying it. And I'll explicitly document that the disabling on large wikis is not out of technical requirements, rather social/policy ones. Legoktm (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Legoktm: You are a long-standing champion, thanks for all the good work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• See also our discussion on my page: n:ru:Обсуждение участника:Krassotkin#Parimatch. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• As far as this topic, if ruwikinews is going to continue to just be a copy-and-paste repository for third party sites at a high volume, it certainly could be stressing the GAF just because of that -- this does not seem to be a traditional community-driven-project-has-become-large and frankly I'm surprised that it hasn't hit other types of performance issues that are leading to dev's or WMF to stop this process. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Further - it appears to really only have about 4 admins (i.e. local abusefilter managers) present -- really not your normal 'large wiki' despite all the copy-paste-creations. Prob needs to stay in GS realm too. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of any other performance issues related to ruwikinews, even though it's large in size it still receives less than 0.1% of the traffic that en.wp receives (it's probably smaller, it didn't even make it onto the dashboard I checked). Legoktm (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

SRG archives

The current SRG archive is >600 kB and over 1000 threads long. Time to set up by-week archives? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Restoring; not sure why this got archived without any reply. Can we please do something about this? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4 I'd agree with weekly archives. I'm not sure if @جار الله's @JarBot supports that though. Could that be clarified, please? Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Martin Urbanec: I will schedule the bot to archives SRG page weekly. It may take several days before scheduling the task. Best>--جار الله (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That would mean changing the naming scheme in the middle of the year, right? What do we do with pages like Steward requests/Global/2021-10? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@جار الله I'm not 100% sure we understood each other well -- the intention is to have one archive page per week (instead of current per month). Would that be possible?

@1234qwer1234qwer4 It's first week of October, so I'd just move that to the archive page for first week of October. Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that a month does not have exactly four weeks. It would make more sense to name the archives by calendar week. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: I understand you now, you want to make archive pages archive according to weeks of the year instead of months, yes this is possible. Such as Steward requests/Global/2021-w50, Steward requests/Global/2021-w51 and so on.--جار الله (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4, Ruslik0, Martin Urbanec, and جار الله: We now have Steward requests/Global/2021-w41, but the header says "This is a discussion archive first created on Error: Invalid time.," can we get Template:Archive header modified to reflect the new naming? -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 23:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)