Steward requests/Global/2009-01

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in January 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Request for global (un)block

Block request for 124.157.250.78

Status:    Done

luxo:124.157.250.78 has been replacing page content with news stories (?) on a couple of wiki's. See User:COIBot/XWiki/ptymail@loxinfo.co.th for examples. --Erwin(85) 12:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, blocked him for 179 hours, which is ~7,46 days, please let us know if it continues after this period, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request for IP 85.71.45.169

Status:    Done

I request a global unblock for IP address 85.71.45.169. User:Spacebirdy recently has given 85.71.45.169 a 3-month block, as this account was considered being a cross-wiki category vandal. Admittedly, these edits of this user from this IP address have some negative edit summaries and a bad username, but please don't consider this as such bad vandalism, warranting 3-month global block. The username " MorelikeMikethe will-never-get-a-wife guard lol " is clearly unacceptable (but hopefully the "lol" in the end can deem the name not so bad), I should've thought about that before I have created it. Also the edit smmaries can be considered a personal attack, however it is quite mild attack ("he's a lousy steward", "You bastard Mike, that work took me like 10 hours", "yeah, gonna flick your ears when I see you, for sure, Mike" "also, Mike, Im gonna shake my fist at you", "And I will spit in your djeneral deerection too, Mike.lifeugard - why the damn reverts to perfectly good edits", "I'mnot gonna send Mike/lifeguard any Xmas pressies next yr", "This Mike.lifeguard has some kind of anti-vandalism bot, which he can't be trusted to run" (OK, so "Bugger off Mike/lifeugard, whatssa-da-matter with you?" is not nice, I admit this. I was quite annoyed in this time), "you know what Mike/lifeguard, you should have some fucking lithuanian lessons", "seriously, this Bird from Space was an awesome contributor, you should be ashamed Mike.lifeguard" and my favorite one "Mike.lifeguard has an ugly neck". I am doing a lot of very useful category interwiki links in the other Wiktionarys, and since this last block in 2007 I did not do a single vandalism edit. Please consider to review these edits from IP address, and make up your minds if this is really 3-month-global-block vandalism. --Agricoleur 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally will not unblock it and ask another steward to review the issue. -> see also Vandalism_reports#Language-category-vandal for more information.
Agricoleur, I don't understand why You did that anyway, I have observed Your edits from "Agricoleur" and would not have taken action on this account, although other sysops asked me to because they were afraid You would continue with Your vandalism edits, but that editsummaries of the sock are totally unacceptable, which is why it got blocked. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand the reason I did that - I'm just a bit immature I guess (nothing wrong with that lol!), hence the stupid edit summaries - I was unhappy with Mike.lifeguard, due to these reverts to my good edits (although I probably would do the same mass-revertion, if I were a steward in his situation). As for the socks, I'll stick with my one name. Maybe you can impose upon me some kind of final warning or something like that, this way I will be forced to behave. Anyway, thanks for replying - I've always appreciated you, Spacebirdy ;). And I'll give Mike a personally apology, in the case of getting unblocked. --Agricoleur 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You know what, give him the appology now (he has an account here on Meta, where You can still edit) and I will discuss that issue with my collegues, sleeping about it. Taking Your word that You will stick to one account and stopping to weave these things into Your contributions is a bit hard to do, because there is not much trust left in You, unfortunately. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the crosswiki contributions of Your account Agricoleur [stalktoy] – [cross-wiki edits] at least lead me to [1] and [2] which does not convince me that You turned a new leaf.
I'd like to hear the opinions of other stewards now too, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The pt.wikt one was an accident. Sure, I can't prove this, but it was. --Agricoleur 21:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
There are too many such "accidents" for my taste. Since the last ones are just a couple of days back, I do not support unblocking your IP. You can try again after the block is over. --Thogo (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Spacebirdy, do you still want independent review of that block? 3 months seems like a long time for an editor who can come and write about it here with a bit of eloquence and humility (as Agricoleur seems to have done with his apology). Is there a longer history of abuse? -- sj
The profanity is offensive, and the sockpuppeting is unacceptable -- another abuse might be grounds for a long block. Being able to talk about this peacefully here is a good sign. Since Mike has effectively accepted your apology, and you have said yourself you should cut down on profanity and take a break, I would support an unblock if Spacebirdy is open to it on the basis of your valuable contributions. -- sj | help translate |+ 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
To Sj - thanks for this mention of "eloquence and humility" - I think, that it is the first time which I have been ever described either as eloquent and as humble! --Agricoleur 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Sj and Thogo.
Sj, since You asked for it, the longer history of abuse can be found here
I am open to an unblock however, but if You ask me only under the clause that the user agrees to stop mass-adding interwikilinks to categories because many people have wasted lots of time to check all these links for their correctness. I would really appreciate if Agricoleur would continue only his constructive contributions to the Wiktionaries.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that restriction. It's simply not feasible to check their interwiki link addition to categories for correctness, which is why all such edits were reverted when vandalistic additions were found. This was a massive waste of time for several of us, and I would not want to continue in that vein. Constructive contributions would be welcome, but interwiki linking is not something I can trust Agricoleur do to without being checked, which would be an unacceptably huge time-sink.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. This is unfortunate regarding the caveat, in which I shall be unable to add interwiki linking, but I accept this condition. I'm sorry for this time-sink, and don't hesitate to severely reprimand me in case of breaking of this deal (which won't happen). --Agricoleur 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Agricoleur for accepting this condition, I hope You find Your place in the projects and continue the constructive editing.
The global block had been removed, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
With regards to this condition: I am sorry, but I had thought that this restriction had been against interwiki linking. I am pleased to say, in ¿regret?, that I had been mistaken. As you may see, this so-called caveat (which was against interwikis y'all) has been, how d'you say, broken. However, recently I have realized that, it was for MASS interwiki linking. Therefore I shall claim innocence. Agricoleur 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Aha! Now I have been informed that edit was not necessarily worthwile, since I had not acknoweldged that this page were sum kinda achive. --Agricoleur 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Maybe I should be getting down for some seriously worthwhile shit, dudes. --Agricoleur 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Global lock and hide request

The following discussion is closed.

Global lock for Ferrer

Status:    Done

Please global lock this account; as a self-nomination — Ferrer 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Asked for confirmation and left a note about the consequences. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed my requestFerrer 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And please lock me as a sock of Ferrer, used because of SUL collision. Ferrer-ru 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I confirm that my sock puppet — Ferrer 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Request completed by Bastique. Kylu 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done bastique demandez! 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for Britishman

Status:    Done

I request that my account be globally locked please. I no longer want to edit the wiki and also the fact that I have a history of socking on en.wiki and feel that it is time to leave and this will prevent me from editing under this account. I also request that the IP address 212.219.59.241 be blocked aswell as this is the college IP which sees the most vandalism. Many thanks. Britishman 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Yes check.svg locking done, X mark.svg blocking the IP not done, I don't see why it should be (re)blocked if there are no reports of abuse from it, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for Chipmunk63

The following discussion is closed.

Why I was locked? I edit nothing except some soccer players stats, last October. --151.49.26.241 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the account "Chipmunk63" is not locked, it is not even possible to do that technically, because it is no sul account. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Comment. there's an account with 16 edits at enwiki, and another with 1 edit at frwiki, both created march 11, 2007. Neither are currently blocked nor is there a history of block. DarkoNeko 18:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You use an IP range that is used by a long-term vandal. That's why the entire IP range was blocked on several wikis and also globally. But, at least on English Wikipedia and globally (which means on all wikis except Meta), the IP range was only blocked for anonymous users. Logged in users should not be affected. Please tell us when and on which wiki you got a block message. --Thogo (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for global permissions

Global rollback for Kwj2772

The following discussion is closed.

Hello. I'm working as a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team. I detected several vandalized articles and reverted. To handle reputable vandalism easily, I request for global rollback access for myself. Thank you--Kwj2772 13:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  • On kowikiquote where you are (temp) sysop, I don't see many vandalism reverts - indeed you have less than 50 edits there. I don't see lots of vandalism work on your home wiki, or meta.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Mike, and I also don't see much cross-wiki work...--Cometstyles 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello, looking at the cross-wiki-contributions, I can't see much work in vandalism/spam reverting, so I'd tend to a Oppose no, but if You are interesting in that aerea and like to help out feel free to do so and re-request in a few months, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Request withdrawn.--Kwj2772 07:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Global rollback for Dferg

The following discussion is closed.

Hello, I'm a member of the SWMT and the SBL Team. Since I joined I've been undoing manually or with the "undo feature" some spam/vandalism across the Wikimedia projects. [3] ,[4], [5] ,[6] are examples of the cross-wiki work I've been doing. Having global rollback will help me a lot against vandals and spammers. Thank you. Dferg (T-ES) 15:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Support definitly cross-wiki active in vandalism/spam reverting and marking vandalism for deletion, thanks for helping, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Comment Dferg would be a asset on the GR's team.happy to have your help --Mardetanha talk 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Comment Active in crosswiki vandalism reverting. Support --Melos 18:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Dferg may be the first user who's not an admin elsewhere we've added to the team of global rollbackers. However, he's done great work over a reasonable length of time, so I'd be happy for him to have this tool.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Support active and willing to help (already helping, in fact). --FiliP × 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Support That's a good plan. --Thogo (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Global rollback for Crochet.david

The following discussion is closed: Not done

I resquest the rollback tool to make easier the undo on all the wikiversities. I check, as possible, all the RC of the wikiversities and the betawikiversity and sometime, they are some IP User (as zombies PC) that make idious modifications and the undo is not easy, mainly if 2 or more modifications are done. So I am aware that the tool help me only on wikiversities wiki because it's my main project and it's in there project that I made the undo action. Thanks to you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crochet.david (talk) diff, please sign with --~~~~

Hello, I'd tend to a Oppose no, can't see much cross-wiki vandalism/spam reverting activity, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Comment useful work (thanks) so far but I think some more widespread contributions would be a good idea before this right was granted. --Herby talk thyme 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above - global rollback is for those active on many wikis.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
agreed with Herby - the work so far looks good; keep it up and reapply in another month. +sj

Global rollback for SwirlBoy39

The following discussion is closed: Not done

I am a simple wikiquote admin, a very active en wp and simple wikipedia admin. I am a very active vandal reverter and the tool will be very helpful for me to help out. ѕwirlвoy  05:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Considering that you added yourself to SWMT just now, and you seem to have little experience in cross-wiki anti-vandalism (and in fact, on only a handful of wikis), I would tend towards waiting until you have more experience. As well, I note you're a sysop on simplewikiquote, but rollbacker (not sysop) on enwiki and simplewiki? Perhaps clarifying this would be worthwhile.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm working towards adminship on simple. ѕwirlвoy  06:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Why do you claim adminship on en.wikipedia and simple.wikipedia, above? Kylu 07:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose no, can't see cross-wiki spam/vandalism reversion, sorry, feel free to apply in some months if You have done some work in that area, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you are neither an enwp admin nor a simple wp admin and you are not active on a cross-wiki basis. Thus Oppose no. --Thogo (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Thogo and Spacebirdy, Oppose no, not just yet, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Probably better not. The comment about being a Simple Wikipedia admin is totally untrue... Majorly talk 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)