Stewards' noticeboard

Hello.
First of all, the rationale stated by Masti is blatantly invalid. Second, this account should be considered an established Wikimedia account and may be alienated only through a global ban motion, by either community or Office. Some sock puppetry in English and Farsi wikipedias is not a sufficient ground to lock the main account without any kind of discussion. One steward may not decide such a case unilaterally. Compare this case to another one, also from 2017:

So, I propose the following remedy:

1. We inform relevant communities (fa.Wikipedia first and foremost) that Chyah may be either globally banned or not globally banned, and may not be just "locked" like a vandal or a common spammer.
2. If no global ban request came in one week, then the global lock is to be lifted.
3. In case of such a request, the lock remains in place pending results of the discussion.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

If we look at [1], the rationale is actually valid: they are using multiple accounts to promote their own concept, which is cross-wiki spam. --Rs chen 7754 18:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

First of all, "spam-only" may be legitimately used to refer to somebody like Fouadadan (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log ), not Chyah. Second, why should I look at action=history? We must look at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q30559585&action=history&offset=20171121&limit=318 to assess situation existing at the moment of global lock. How many proven accounts of Chyah do we see there? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

I’ve never heard of the concept "established wikipedian may be locked only by ban", where is it documented? AFAIK there’s no such requirement. — regards, Revi 08:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

@-revi: it is documented in Global locks:

It is generally applied to vandalism-only accounts, spam-only accounts, long-term abuser sock accounts, compromised accounts, and though in rare cases users who would be eligible for a global block are locked in this way as well, issues such as like cross-wiki abuse.

— the Wikimedia community, Global locks

The "rare cases" clause indicates that such "like cross-wiki abuse" might be something more severe than few (four or five) accounts trying to push an article into Wikipedia. Let Wikipedia defend its integrity with site bans, indeed, I do not advocate pushing non-notable biographies into sites having notability policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

Actually, the global locks page is not a policy but a documentation of practice. There is no community-approved policy on locking accounts. And this is indeed one of the "rare cases" where the user would be globally blocked if such a function existed. Whenever an account with good edits is locked, it's a balance between recognizing the previous good but also preventing current abuse. If an account is actively engaging in abusive behaviour across multiple wikis, it may be locked. Such is the case here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

@Ajraddatz: "abusive behaviour" of Chyah was a mild sock puppetry in two wikis. It is not about the account itself, it is about the person. The person committing such acts may or may not be banned—depending on the community opinion—but again, for the master Chyah account we see very few abuse, let alone an amount sufficient for global locking without any discussion. For wikipedias other than en. and fa. an abusive use of multiple accounts is not obvious at all (although is plausible). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

But the account was not locked for the multiple account abuse, according to the summary. It was for the spam. --Rs chen 7754 00:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

@Rschen7754: and where do you see amount of advertising, CoI or anything close to spam comparable to overall contributions of the account? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

• Comment Comment On 8 December 2017, I wrote a record about Chyah socks on ar.wiki (Any CU can take a look at Special:PermaLink/24857 on CU wiki). Also note that Rafic.Mufid account is confirmed as sock for Chyah as wrote in blocked column, also as you see there's a link between Chyah and Sonia Sevilla account (as wrote on Rafic.Mufid centralauth), so? --Alaa :)..! 18:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

  ... so we see that Persian Wikimedians have a grudge against Chyah. Otherwise is would be unconceivable to use Sonia_Sevilla with her one edit at a user_talk—looking more as a child’s rather than a sock’s—as a pretext to repress Chyah. This incident demonstrates hounding even more clearly than Masti’s global lock. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

• Comment Sometimes such locks happen although we can consider reasonable conditions for unlock. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

  IMHO the only "reasonable condition" may be a public RfC to establish facts, chronology of actions by both feuding parties, and extent of Chyah’s abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

No, the only reasonable condition will be for Chyah to stop creating any socks at all. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

@Ruslik0: this approach can’t lead to anything. The global lock prevents Chyah even from reading MediaWiki notifications. And again, wiki communities are for some extent self-governed, and I do not want administration of fa.Wikiquote or fa.Wikipedia, or even en.Wikipedia to send instructions to rob contributors to Wikimedia Commons of their accounts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

This approach will lead to either Chyah unlocked on the conditions that I specified above or the lock becoming permanent. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

@Ruslik0: I might miss something, but when the acc is locked it isn’t possible even extract a promise (to abstain from certain things in the future) with reasonable certainty about the origin. Special:EmailUser/Chyah is not an option (even were it possible, some caveats preclude reliable verification of identity), hence how can one now contact Chyah at all? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

OTRS exists for this purpose. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

Unable to comprehend what is Ruslik0 speaking about. OTRS or any other off-wiki communication are of little use, obviously – with the account completely disabled there is no way to confirm identity, to tell the genuine Chyah from an impostor. We may not be count on her possible personal acquittance because they—if such Wikimedians exist at all—are likely from the same community whose reaction I deem disproportionate and undue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

• Comment Comment First this account is locked, not banned, do not mistake the two for same thing, second, the two comparison which you just made is for different purpose entirely. Shockpuppeting for spamming is different than "just shockpuppeting". I do not encourage this "bot-like" behavior. The thing that person may and could do is, first, admit this mistake, second send request to OTRS.--AldNonymous ^Bicara? 15:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Reply
• Comment Comment What is my relation to this topic? in Persian wikipedia and wikiquote i banned because of Chyah. I blocked there without any proven reason, if you gonna blocking me global, tell me now. I am an active user, its more better to tell me now, not when i am in middle of editing/uploading. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Reply
• Chyah's back with more socks - c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Chyah - Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Reply

as i disscused with @Incnis Mrsi: there is a huge mistake occured on Chyah's usercheking that makes no sense, btw you are free to don't believe that, put it away. But, I would like to file a complaint about privacy violation of Chyah and myself against User:Sunfyre who is an admin on FaWiki and misuse of userrights against Sharaky who is an admin on fa.wikiquote.

About Sunfyre, Let make it local, Chyah blocked infinite in FaWiki on December 11, 2016 and i have been blocked on March 7, 2018 there under "CheckUser evidence confirms" that i am a sock of Chyah, he claimed it without no usercheking and nothing, then i asked a review, bcz my username don't seen on Chyah's socks as what EnWiki confirmed it, i cleared the reiview after a month bcz no one answered me. there is something not understanding for me: those socks of Chyah on EnWiki not blocked in Fawiki under the name of Chyah's socks, and I am not blocked on EnWiki under one of chyah's socks, but i have blocked on FaWiki as Chyah sock! What is going on here, userchecking confirmations are just for local or its global? or as i said, there is a huge mistake on Chyah's usercheking on EnWiki and I am the only sock of Chyah and those band of newcomers related to a not notable article (Mohammad Ghorbanpour) are not chyah's socks? For god's sake, someone explain for me why a user like Chyah after seven years activity should try to make socks for making a not notable article? Who can seen any spamming, trolling, or any kind of this amateur acts about Chyah. Check her Contributions and you find she was an active user doing her best, and yea, she had socks, but surely this socks related to Ghorbanpour article can be seen on EnWiki are not her socks and this led to her globall banning.

and About Sharaky , he blocked me on fa.wikiquote by same reason like Sunfyre but under "Bcz Chyah is globally banned, her sock should be banned in this Wiki too", here. Well, if she globally blocked (not true, her acctount is "Locked"), any of her socks should be blocked or Locked globally too, every sycop in every local wiki is not free to lock her sock by his own decision. I think he should make a report here and confirm it i am a sock, then i will be globally banned.

i also like to notice i receive nothing from FaWiki ppl, not even via info-fa@wikimedia.org. I think there a mistake on Chyah, i said what i believe, the only way was here, Metawiki, on Wikipdias no one answers, and this is not nice and i guess at least four times Chyah and myself privacy invaded on FaWiki. I don't know how to show it. The first privacy violation on Chyah is exactly the Sunfyre's reason on blocking me, they blocked her infinite on December 11, 2016 and blocked me as her sock on March 7, 2018 (while she had no sock during this period there, and this band of Chyah's socks on EnWiki not counted as her socks on FaWiki) without any userchecking and proof, i think there is something "personal" happened there after one year and three months, i am not sure what is it exactly, but related to "personal life of a Wiki user", many times on FaWiki they said :we deal with a "real personality" not with "an account", and we trust on our feels first then on evidences. Sorry for my broken english, Thank You.--Rafic.Mufid (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC) Reply

A significant change to the rollback function is being discussed above. --Rs chen 7754 05:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Reply

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) Reply

Hello. I was referred to this board because I wanted to ask a steward's input on this situation of mine. A couple of days ago, an investigation conducted on the English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Skiyomi) revealed that I had used some previous accounts to vandalize, and those accounts are now all locked. However, I do intend on making only constructive edits here from now on, and yet have been worrying that this account might end up locked as well. If I promise to abide by the following conditions (and any others that any admins might want to add), could I please keep using this account?

The conditions are as follows.

1. I will refrain from editing the English Wikipedia in any way for six months, as per the conditions of my block there (I can appeal it after six months have passed)

2. I won't vandalize any more, either anonymously or while logged in.

3. I will only use this account, Wild Draw Four.

Thank you for any help with this, the possiblity of being locked has just been bothering me and I'd like to resolve this situation once and for all. Wild Draw Four (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Reply

A new page about Wendell Brown has 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) Reply

@There'sNoTime: --Alaa :)..! 09:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Reply

• Stewards
• Noticeboards