Steward requests/Global: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 64: Line 64:
{{/lock-header}}
{{/lock-header}}
<!-- Your requests go AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SECTION. Copy the request template above and fill in your information. -->
<!-- Your requests go AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SECTION. Copy the request template above and fill in your information. -->

=== Global unlock for [[user:Mr.long1528|Mr.long1528]] ===
{{status}} <!-- do not remove this template -->
*{{LockHide|Mr.long1528}}
This account was locked mistakenly due to similarities with previous spambots. The account is part of of a class project, and the account's authenticity has been [https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ELTted&curid=343277&diff=4453023&oldid=4453012 verified] by the course instructor. --[[User:Chenzw|Chenzw]] ([[User talk:Chenzw|talk]]) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


=== Global unlock for [[user:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ===
=== Global unlock for [[user:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ===

Revision as of 08:00, 12 June 2013

Shortcut:
SRG
This page hosts requests for requesting Global (un)blocks, (un)locks and hidings. Note that requests for global permissions are now handled at Steward requests/Global permissions. Proposals for new groups should be made on Meta:Babel.
Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests


Requests for global (un)block

<translate>

Please be sure to follow the instructions below:

Your request might be rejected if you don't follow the instructions.
Please also review Global blocking . [[<tvar name=phab>phab:T17294</tvar>|Only IP addresses can be globally blocked at this moment]]. Please see <tvar name=gl>#Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding</tvar> if your request involves an account.
Global blocks don't affect Meta-Wiki, so if your IP address is blocked, you can still appeal here. IP addresses that cause disruption on Meta should be reported at [[<tvar name=rfh>Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat</tvar>|Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat]] instead of here so that they can be blocked locally.</translate>
<translate> Please describe the kind of cross wiki abusive activity you see from the IP. Saying an IP is a long term abuser is not helpful, but saying "IP vandalizes at ban.wikipedia, no.wikipedia and vi.wikipedia" is. This is especially important for range blocks. If you do not provide enough details, your request might be declined.</translate>
<translate> Instructions for making a request</translate>

<translate> Before requesting, make sure that:

  1. You know the IP address(es) you wish to have globally blocked or unblocked.
  2. For blocks, the global blocking criteria are met.
  3. For unblocks, your request addresses the original reason for blocking the IP, if any.

To make a request for the address(es) to be blocked or unblocked

Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain why the address(es) should be blocked/unblocked.</translate>
=== Global block/unblock for <translate><!--T:5--> [[Special:Contributions/Some IP address|Some IP address]]</translate> ===
{{Status}} <!-- Do not remove this template -->
* {{Luxotool|<translate><!--T:6--> IP address</translate>}}
<translate><!--T:7--> Description, evidence, diffs, etc.</translate> --~~~~

<translate>

When requesting that your IP be unblocked, note that stewards need to know your IP address to even consider a request.
To find your IP, please visit <tvar name=whatismyip>https://www.whatismyip.com/</tvar>
You are not required to disclose your IP in public - you may make requests privately to any steward on <tvar name=IRC>IRC</tvar> or by email at: <tvar name=address>stewards@wikimedia.org</tvar></translate>

Global block for 108.174.58.172

Status:    Done

Open proxy, blocked at plwiki & zhwiki.--Kegns 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Mathonius for 1 year. Trijnsteltalk 18:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global unblock for 77.48.153.172

Status:    Not done

Hi, i want ublock my IP adress. --77.48.153.172 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there any reason for this unblock ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this IP adress has been blocked since Febuary 2012, and i want continue with editing of Wikipedian content. Thanks. --77.48.153.172 09:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No valid reason as there has clearly nothing changed since then. Trijnsteltalk 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global unblock for 2001:1af8::/32 (SixXS)

Status:    In progress

This IPv6 range belongs to the SixXS ISP, which provides fixed IP addresses and tunnels after registration, and hence does not qualify by the definition of open proxy. Individual hosts can be reported via the abuse page. Please remove the default block on the range and use individual /64 blocks where appropriate. - Combusterf (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The /32 is allocated to a webhost, LeaseWeb, which typically has open proxies, and has been found to contain a few. I would suggest exempting the prefixes specified at [1], but a steward would then have to make 8 blocks in place of this single block for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global unblock for 117.18.231.50

Status:    In progress

This user ip blocked by one steward but I am totally confused and astonished as i just created account. I visited few features of Wikipedia and few options like rules,minor editing like grammar,comma etc. I read talk etc. after that i have edited one test page and previewed but not posted and finally exit from Wikipedia. I know i have no contribution on wiki,i didnt made abuse or harmful edit on wiki or even i am not trying to make any non-sense work. i want to contribute in future like others. but today I found " Editing from your IP address (117.18.231.50) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 09:38, 31 May 2014 by Quentinv57 " if any thing occurred, it is totally unknown to me.please unblock IP 117.18.231.50. --user:117.18.231.50 19:22, June 1,2013(UTC) (uncorrectly signed comment by Hzakir94 Vogone talk 13:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The use appears to be able to edit now. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for 114.222.64.24

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spam - ie.b, fr.n, ti.wikt --Ignacio (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done by MF-Warburg for 1 month. Trijnsteltalk 18:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for 110.5.75.33

Status:    Done

Vandalism. --Buggia 11:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done for two weeks. Trijnsteltalk 19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for 198.2.210.1

Status:    Done

Spam. --Buggia 13:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done for two weeks. Trijnsteltalk 18:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding

Note that global blocking currently only applies to IPs, due to a technical limitation. If you wish to request a named account for global [un]locking, please request a global [un]lock here instead. Be sure to follow the instructions below:
  • Your request might be rejected if it doesn't include the necessary information.
  • Warning! This page is publicly viewable. If the account name is grossly insulting or contains personal information please contact a steward privately in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect or email your request to the stewards VRT queue at stewards-oversight@wikimedia.org (direct wiki interface) but do not post it here. Thanks.
  • Warning! This is not the place to ask for locks based on your opinion that someone is disruptive. Global locks are used exclusively against vandalism and spam, not because of content disputes, not because you think that someone deserves to be globally blocked. In such cases, you should ask for local blocks at appropriate places.
  • If you are globally locked, you should appeal your lock to stewards-appeals@wikimedia.org.

Please describe abusive activity of an account before reporting them here. Since stewards are often not active at projects the reported accounts are, things that seem obvious to you may not be equally obvious to the reviewing steward.

Instructions for making a request

Before requesting that a global account be (un)locked, please be sure that:

  1. You have evidence of cross-wiki disruption from the account(s).
  2. You can show that it is not feasible to use local-only blocks or other measures like page protection to combat the disruption.
  3. You have considered making the request in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect, especially for account names which will be hidden, or for urgent requests.
To make a request for an account to be locked or unlocked
Copy one of the codes below to the bottom of this section and explain why the account(s) should be locked/unlocked.
=== Global lock/unlock for Foo ===
{{status}} <!-- do not remove this template -->
* {{LockHide|username}}
* {{LockHide|username|hidename=1}} <!-- if you do not want the name to be visible on this page -->
*...
Reasons, etc. --~~~~

For many accounts: 

=== Global lock for spambots/vandals ===
{{status}} <!-- do not remove this template -->
{{MultiLock|username|username2|username3}}
{{MultiLock|username|username2|username3|hidename=1}} <!-- if you do not want the names to be visible on this page -->
*...
Reasons, etc, --~~~~

Global unlock for Mr.long1528

Status:    In progress

This account was locked mistakenly due to similarities with previous spambots. The account is part of of a class project, and the account's authenticity has been verified by the course instructor. --Chenzw (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global unlock for Thekohser

Status:    In progress
  • Thekohser (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
  • My account was globally locked in early 2010 after private discussions between Jimbo Wales and Mike.lifeguard. They were asked numerous times to disclose the rationale for a global lock, but none was provided, though it seemed obvious to me that the main reason was because Wales didn't approve of quotations attributed to him that I was placing on Wikiquote. Eventually, several Wikimedia communities (German Wikipedia, English Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiversity, and Wikimedia Commons) determined that the global block was improper, as it didn't reflect my good standing in each of those other projects. So, my account was renamed by a steward or a bureaucrat (I think it was Pathoschild), and then named back again on each project, so that the account would become uncoupled from the out-of-process "global lock". What I am asking for is either a similar work-around to restore my editing privileges on the projects where I have been participating dutifully for over three years, or an actual "community rendered" vote on whether my account should be placed under global lock, based on the three-year-old concerns of two admins who acted privately (without community discussion) to effect the lock. -- 2001:558:1400:10:811F:A519:E80:6495 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC) (as, Thekohser, since I cannot log in with my account.)[reply]
  • Possible helpful links. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

This might help (no comment from me on this case, just a timeline clarifying the comments above. I recuse myself from any action as I was peripherally involved in this back in 2010 QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)):[reply]

  • 25 March 2010 blocked by Jimbo at Meta for one year (Cross-wiki issues: Globally banned user)
  • 3 May 2010 account locked by Magister Mathematicae based on a discussion on Jimbo's talk page
  • 5 May 2010 account unlocked by Pathoschild who then applied local blocks to all projects where Thekohser was active (current block list available here)
  • 30 May 2010 account locked by mike.lifeguard (comment per discussion)
  • After 30 May 2010 various projects circumvent the global lock by renaming Thekohser to unmerge the local accounts from the locked global account.
    • dewiki - unblocked but not renamed, account is still impacted by the global lock
    • enwikibooks renamed to unmerge the account
    • enwikinews renamed to unmerge the account
    • enwikisource unblocked but not unmerged
    • enwikiversity renamed to unmerge
    • rowiki unblocked but not unmerged
    • Commons unblocked, reblocked, unblocked, etc. Currently blocked

I may have made some mistakes here as I was working through it quickly - feel free to adjust the data if it is wrong QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I am not a friend of Thekohser, and I have a long documented negative interaction with him on another Wiki (Wikiversity). I enforced his global ban there, and I took actions to prohibit him from editing the Wiki. That being said, I have never thought that his lock was done properly. When I upheld it against him there, I did so to uphold the spirit of the rules and to defend the system. I would have no problem with him being globally unlocked. I do have a problem with individuals circumventing the global lock on a local level through breaking the SUL. So I would support an unlock and, if he shows that he merits such an action in the future, he can then be put up for a global ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user is in good standing at enWS for their editing, though not always renowned for good communications, or leaving other wikis baggage at the door, but is not unique in that regard; and good editing and transcription is the skill set that enWS is looking for. The 'global ban' at that time was problematic for the enWS community in the nature of its imposition and the lack of communication, and not a circumstance that I would like to see repeated. It is my opinion that summary imposition of a global lock of an editor of good-/long-standing is something that should be avoided without a broader community consultation. Personally, I would prefer that the global lock be repealed, and if the global community does not want the editor editing they have a means to undertake to resolve such matters and one that the stewards can enforce following due process. I would ask the appellant to try to refrain from the wild accusations, stick to the facts of what they want and why. Their opinions on other people's opinions, let alone these people's actions, are seemingly irrelevant to the matter in hand. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Supplementary. I do not favour the approach of trying to disconnect accounts from the global SUL, from my understanding of the proposed unification process it simply becomes both problematic and unworkable, such why I favour the unlocking of the account. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I'm wondering how much legit and useful is this un(b)lock(s). --Vituzzu (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The appellant seems to think it legitimate and usefu. Mine is just an opinion for whomever evaluates. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On Wikiversity, I was out of process desysopped because I defended the unlock, and the Stewards all seemed to side with that at the time and refused to reblock him, restore my adminship, etc. So it is so legit that the Stewards at the time allowed major policy violations to happen to uphold it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about you, this is someone's appeal against a lock. This is meant to be forward looking, not rehashing history, that just informs the review. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your incivility is uncalled for. The Stewards have unanimously ruled previous on the breaking of the lock, and deemed that the abuse of power by Wikiversity admin in upholding the lock break was to be acceptable. You obviously did not bother to even look at the incident that I discussed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Global bans policy should be followed moving forward. Thekohser was active on 19 projects. None of 19 communities were informed and asked to weigh in on a global ban --darklama 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like analogies, so my take is like this: imagine a Wild West town where the sheriff was always the one to decide who got thrown in jail and for how long. It was a small town and it was easy to do things informally. Then the town builds up a little, and maybe some new people say "hey, it doesn't seem right that 1 guy should make those decisions just because he has always been the ones to make those decisions. The sheriff agrees, and steps back into more of an advisory/figurehead kind of role, while the townspeople take greater control over the jailing and the jail time. The thing is, there's a cramped, dusty cell down at the end that everyone forgot about, and in it is a guy who was locked up by "the old rules". IMO the townspeople should let him out, as times have changed and regimes have changed. So in practical wiki terms terms, the global ban should be rescinded, as well as any local ban based solely on the global, i.e. obviously the en.wiki ban would remain in place. After that, anyone is free to propose a new global ban if they feel it is warranted, but one that can be discussed under current community norms. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that Thekohser is Otis? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about 8 days now. How is the "in progress" effort coming along? - 2001:558:1400:10:5C9B:9086:1EDB:60F 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two full weeks now. Still "in progress". - 2001:558:1400:10:F5A3:94A7:8E14:AC4C 15:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that issues involving Thekohser can be handled by each individual wiki community. I don't see any reason for a global lock. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over three weeks now. Is any real "progress" actually being made on this, or is the "In progress" stamp at the top merely a euphemism for "Screw you, Thekohser"? - 2001:558:1400:10:80BE:649:73A2:181F 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps most of the stewards are "involved" in the situation, or are hesitant to get involved in this complex issue. But it would be nice to have some more steward input here. This, that and the other (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for LTA:ISECHIKA（いせちか）for Japanese Wikipedia 20130608

Status:    Done
LTA:ISECHIKA's accounts

Please lock there accounts.Vandalism of Japanese Wikipedia（discuss・reference 1・reference 2・reference 3）."name hidden" are private name accounts. Please remove from lists. --Lanwi1(Talk) 22:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC), addition--Lanwi1(Talk) 12:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Done. Trijnsteltalk 20:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots. --Ignacio (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Alorkabhi

Status:    Done

Per w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alorkalabahi. --Rschen7754 07:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots. Érico Wouters msg 09:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Blu Aardvark socks

Status:    Not done

Abusive usernames and are all sockpuppets of long time vandal Blu Aardvark and these accounts are all candidates for global locking. --74.131.157.30 14:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first account does not exist. Where is your account, btw? --MF-W 15:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just glock the accounts that exist. I want my account unlocked and I am this user and I want it unlocked. I will avoid the vandalism spree i did with that account. Furthermore, glock all the existing accounts listed here. --74.131.157.30 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the first one so glock all of these accounts. They are Blu Aaardvark. --74.131.157.30 15:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly take no orders from a locked account. Even if you repeat it like a mantra, I won't "glock all the existing accounts". They all have no accounts except on enwiki, where they're already blocked. Not done --MF-W 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots. --Ignacio (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots. --Ignacio (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ruslik (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for LeanneHic

Status:    Done

Spambot. Érico Wouters msg 04:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots. --Glaisher (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ruslik (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for global permissions

This section has been moved to Steward requests/Global permissions.

See also

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global&oldid=5561056"