Hi all, Yesterday Michael, Amir, and I were looking at the list of contributors to the Khowar test-Wikipedia on Incubator, which was recently approved. Two of the three most active editors are blocked on enwiki as sockpuppets of the same person. Therefore I made a checkuser request and the result (given by steward user:Matiia) is that Rachitrali, Zaheeruddin25 and Mirajbi are all the same person. I closed the phabricator request as it means there is only one regular contributor, not three..
Thanks for doing that - even though it's rather disappointing :(
On 03-Apr-17 13:06, MF-Warburg wrote:
Hi all, Yesterday Michael, Amir, and I were looking at the list of contributors to the Khowar test-Wikipedia on Incubator, which was recently approved. Two of the three most active editors are blocked on enwiki as sockpuppets of the same person. Therefore I made a checkuser request and the result (given by steward user:Matiia) is that Rachitrali, Zaheeruddin25 and Mirajbi are all the same person. I closed the phabricator request as it means there is only one regular contributor, not three..
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Yes, it *is* disappointing. I wonder if we should make a checkuser part of our regular approval procedure to make sure it doesn't happen again, just like having the authenticity of the language verified is part of our procedure after someone tried to fool us in the past.
Antony
Am 2017-04-03 um 17:21 schrieb Oliver Stegen:
Thanks for doing that - even though it's rather disappointing :(
On 03-Apr-17 13:06, MF-Warburg wrote:
Hi all, Yesterday Michael, Amir, and I were looking at the list of contributors to the Khowar test-Wikipedia on Incubator, which was recently approved. Two of the three most active editors are blocked on enwiki as sockpuppets of the same person. Therefore I made a checkuser request and the result (given by steward user:Matiia) is that Rachitrali, Zaheeruddin25 and Mirajbi are all the same person. I closed the phabricator request as it means there is only one regular contributor, not three..
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I agree with Antony. Let's make it a regular procedure.
Regards Satdeep Gill
Strategy Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Co-founder, Punjabi Wikimedians Treasurer, Affiliations Committee Member, Language Committee
On 03-Apr-2017, at 8:25 PM, Antony Green toniogreen@web.de wrote:
Yes, it *is* disappointing. I wonder if we should make a checkuser part of our regular approval procedure to make sure it doesn't happen again, just like having the authenticity of the language verified is part of our procedure after someone tried to fool us in the past.
Antony
Am 2017-04-03 um 17:21 schrieb Oliver Stegen: Thanks for doing that - even though it's rather disappointing :(
On 03-Apr-17 13:06, MF-Warburg wrote: Hi all, Yesterday Michael, Amir, and I were looking at the list of contributors to the Khowar test-Wikipedia on Incubator, which was recently approved. Two of the three most active editors are blocked on enwiki as sockpuppets of the same person. Therefore I made a checkuser request and the result (given by steward user:Matiia) is that Rachitrali, Zaheeruddin25 and Mirajbi are all the same person. I closed the phabricator request as it means there is only one regular contributor, not three..
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
-- Dr. Antony Green Rudolf-Seiffert-Str. 31 WE 1703 10369 Berlin, Germany E-Mail: toniogreen@web.de Mobile: +49-176-82295920 _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Let's not require CU in such cases.
As a former CU and steward, I can say that CU actions are used just in the most extreme situations, when they are really needed, as they by default violate user's (and lilely users') privacy.
While it is likely we could enforce this, it would also prolong the decision in the cases for which CU action will prove to be unnecessary (99.99% of them).
At the other side, it is possible even to create a program which would gather public data and give us more information for the final decision.
Note, also, that MF-Warburg used public information before concluding that CU action is necessary.
On Apr 3, 2017 9:34 PM, "Satdeep Gill" satdeepgill@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Antony. Let's make it a regular procedure.
Regards Satdeep Gill
Strategy Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Track_B#SGill_.28WMF.29 Co-founder, Punjabi Wikimedians https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_Wikimedians Treasurer, Affiliations Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee Member, Language Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee
On 03-Apr-2017, at 8:25 PM, Antony Green toniogreen@web.de wrote:
Yes, it *is* disappointing. I wonder if we should make a checkuser part of our regular approval procedure to make sure it doesn't happen again, just like having the authenticity of the language verified is part of our procedure after someone tried to fool us in the past.
Antony
Am 2017-04-03 um 17:21 schrieb Oliver Stegen:
Thanks for doing that - even though it's rather disappointing :(
On 03-Apr-17 13:06, MF-Warburg wrote:
Hi all, Yesterday Michael, Amir, and I were looking at the list of contributors to the Khowar test-Wikipedia on Incubator, which was recently approved. Two of the three most active editors are blocked on enwiki as sockpuppets of the same person. Therefore I made a checkuser request and the result (given by steward user:Matiia) is that Rachitrali, Zaheeruddin25 and Mirajbi are all the same person. I closed the phabricator request as it means there is only one regular contributor, not three..
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
-- Dr. Antony Green Rudolf-Seiffert-Str. 31 WE 1703 10369 Berlin, Germany E-Mail: toniogreen@web.de Mobile: +49-176-82295920 <+49%20176%2082295920>
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2017-04-04 10:54 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
Let's not require CU in such cases.
As a former CU and steward, I can say that CU actions are used just in the most extreme situations, when they are really needed, as they by default violate user's (and lilely users') privacy.
While it is likely we could enforce this, it would also prolong the decision in the cases for which CU action will prove to be unnecessary (99.99% of them).
I agree with Millosh. It's not allowed to checkuser without any indications of sockpuppetry, so I am not even sure if it would be allowed. Note by the way that I have already previously sometimes requested checks on test-wikis if I had suspicions. There were never "positive" results (i.e. sockpuppetry) on wikis that were close to approval before.