Steward requests/Global/2011-03

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 March 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Requests for global (un)block

Global unblock for 210.87.254.42

The following request is closed: not done

please unblock my ip address to edit pages on wikipedia. this is our official site IP, thus we cannot edit information concerning our wiki page if we are blocked.

This IP address is not globally blocked. fr33kman 21:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Global block for 79.170.44.156

The following request is closed: not done
Status:    Not done

I have been vandalizing, testing and threatening to vandalize. I am requesting to be punished for at least 24 hours. Please block me. Until then, I'll be cross-wiki vandalizing. --79.170.44.156 20:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I confirm that. Mr. Berty (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming (thats why I gave the link :)). 79.170.44.156 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The was banned on simple wikipedia as an open proxy.(verify) MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Close this user has not made any edits since 2011-01-22 MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Marked as X mark.svg Not done -Barras 10:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Global block for 69.178.192.0/22

The following request is closed: done
Status:    Done

69.178.192.0/22 is the current range of the rather nasty 69.178 vandals (whom anyone involved in global countervandalism knows about). Even after multiple blocks and global blocks this guy keeps going, so perhaps putting this proxy out of action would be a good thing. This range encompasses all the IPs that I've seen him use in the four months that I've been active in global countervandalism. --Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. PeterSymonds 08:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Global unblock for user Самый Древний in Russian Wikipedia

The following request is closed: done
Status:    Done
I've have been blocked by user Shizhao without any explanation of reasons. There was used an "open proxy" as a reason. Could somebody kindly explain a reason, because I've never used it and never have had such a problem...
I'm a user from Azerbaijan, but now I'm in Dubai. May be hotel uses any "open proxy". If so please unblock me, I'll not edit wikipedia untill coming back to Azerbaijan.
thanks and rgds. Самый Древний from russian wikipedia.
This appears to have been resolved—the user is able to edit in ru.wiki. Ruslik 09:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done/X mark.svg Not done - whatever, what Rusilik0 says. If it is resolved... -Barras 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Global unblock for IP Address 86.96.226.85 from Kathamarai

The following request is closed: done
Status:    Done

Hello, my IP is blocked as an "open proxy" when I work in my office computer. I am able to do everything fine in Wikipedia from my Home computer. Please unblock this IP Address. Kathamarai 04:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The block is "anonymous only", which means it should not affect you when you are using your account. Ruslik 09:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruslik, Thanks for your reply. From this IP Address I am not able to edit some pages and when I try to edit it says that it is blocked giving the reason as "open proxy". Kathamarai 06:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Was you editing as Kathamarai when this happened? Ruslik 07:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. --Kathamarai 10:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What page did you try to edit? Ruslik 10:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
en:Tamil Nadu legislative assembly election, 2011 and even I am having the same problem with Sandbox. Kathamarai 11:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you copy here the exact block message you're getting? There's no local block for that IP on en.wikipedia, and the global block is indeed anonymous-only so it shouldn't apply to logged-in users. Jafeluv 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The below is the Block Message I get everytime,

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.
Editing from your IP address or IP address range has been disabled on all wikis by Shizhao (meta.wikimedia.org).
The reason given was "Open proxy".
To request unblock, visit your talk page and add the text {{unblock|global block — REASON}}.
Replace "REASON" with the reason for requesting unblock.
Additionally, you may appeal the global block at Steward requests/Global.
The block expires on October 22, 2011 at 10:20.
Kathamarai 13:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the global block that affects you is this one. I'll leave a note on Shizhao's talk page. Jafeluv 13:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jafeluv. Kathamarai 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done The block has been changed to anonymous-only, so you should now be able to edit when logged in. If the same thing happens again, just let us know. Jafeluv 23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Jafeluv, Still it is blocked. -- Kathamarai 04:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I modified it. let me know if it is better. Matanya 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi All, still I am having the same problem. Kathamarai 04:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain how you determine the IP address that you use? Ruslik 07:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruslik, I found it in this website "websitewhatismyipaddress.com" as 86.96.226.85. But when I used "ipconfig" command in the DOS it shows as 192.168.0.153. - Kathamarai 10:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The first one is your ip. The second one is your internal ip. I removed the block, please see if it helps. Matanya 10:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Global unblock from Anna.shams

Status:    Not done

please unblock me. I am Human not a Proxy. It displays me this message at time of editing:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from your IP address or IP address range has been disabled on all wikis by Shizhao (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given was "Open proxy". To request unblock, visit your talk page and add the text {{unblock|global block — REASON}}. Replace "REASON" with the reason for requesting unblock. Additionally, you may appeal the global block at Steward requests/Global.

Can you reproduce here the exact text of the message? Ruslik 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Global lock for Moulton

The following request is closed: not done
Status:    Not done
  • Moulton (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) ... en.wikiversity user User:Moulton
  • Caprice (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) ... en.wikiversity user User:Caprice
  • User Moulton is already globally locked. However, at en.wikiversity, User was unblocked as Caprice by a custodian about to be desysopped. As Caprice was being allowed to edit, and was not being seriously disruptive, a 'crat delinked the Moulton account by renaming, to allow the editor to use his long-term name locally. This was not controversial at the time. The editor has become, again, highly disruptive, blatantly and admittedly trolling for outraged response, insistently outing, revert warring without justification, and local admins either consider themselves involved, or are otherwise unwilling or unable to respond to even blatant disruption. The user was warned by a local 'crat with [1], but there has been no follow-up.
  • A steward action to lock Caprice, and to relink the Wikiversity Moulton account to the SUL, would restore the prior status quo, still allowing local action to unlock or whitelist, but would immediately protect users from outing and harassment. There is a request for custodial action at permanent link to current version. Specific evidence, only the tip of the iceberg, is linked from there.

I will notify the Wikiversity community through appropriate notices of this request, and, because of ongoing immediate harm from harassment and outing edits, will also point to this request on the Steward IRC. --Abd 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Local notices placed, including at current link to the Request custodian action page. --Abd 17:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I regret that I have but 328,192 lives to give to my community. —Moulton 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm steadfastly neutral on this (and trying to mediate as best I can), but I feel I should point out that Moulton has access to very large IP ranges, and will simply go around this block. WV would not have enough active staff to handle that issue without further assistance. v:Wikiversity:Request custodian action would be the best contact page if there are any questions. --SB_Johnny talk 17:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
SBJ was trying to mediate, commendably, but his effort, [2], simply attracted more disruption and attacks on KillerChihuahua, who was, in fact, trying to cooperate. Moulton has indeed threatened to require massive range blocks; if negotiation were possible, it would be better to negotiate. But that has proven impossible, Moulton does not negotiate, he demands and bullies. Local administrative coverage is thin, SBJ is right, but remedying this will take time. Meanwhile, if Moulton makes range blocks necessary, as a short-term response, that's a consequence that must be tolerated. It's better than shutting down Wikiversity, or "probation," which starts to loom as a real possibility if local custodians cannot prevent the abuse of Wikiversity as a platform for abuse. If SBJ wants to continue his mediation effort, that can be done without tolerating the abuse that has arisen and that is intensifying. Indeed, his position might improve. --Abd 17:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I concur with SB_Johnny. Please see SRCU/Moulton@enwikiversity for prior actions related to similar issues. --mikeu talk 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • BlockHead! There's a whole lot more than what's in that woefully out-dated list. —Palomino of Certainty 13:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • PeterSymonds did some oversight, per the request on WV, but also removed the request itself, including other evidence and comment, as was linked above. Stewards may, of course, still read this, but others will not be able to follow the issue, and this could become controversial. I've asked Peter to restore what was not sensitive there, or I will compile other evidence as may be available. I certainly agree with the oversight of edits containing real names, but more was deleted than necessary. --Abd 18:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The whole thread had to be removed and all the diffs suppressed, otherwise future diffs would show the same content. All the diffs I suppressed contained sensitive data. PeterSymonds 18:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    (Just noting here that I've provided Abd with the non-sensitive content locally. PeterSymonds 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC))
I thanked Peter for that on his WV talk page. However, it would have been better for transparency had a redacted version been provided, instead of wholesale removal of comments, including mine, that did not contain names, but only references to subsequently oversighted edits. I've handled revision deletion on Wikiversity, and generally replaced the name with "[name redacted]" leaving the rest of the comment in place. In this case some of the comments themselves were grossly offensive, acknowledging an intention to harass, to force response. --Abd 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • User continues to out. (Quickly revision deleted by PeterSymonds) [3]. --Abd 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Request withdrawn Edits were oversighted, accounts Moulton and Caprice blocked on Wikiversity. No immediate need for further steward action. If assistance is needed due to threatened IP disruption, requests will be filed as needed, but global account handling may not be necessary. --Abd 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Request reopened because SBJ unblocked without obtaining assurances regarding disruption, and apparently approved of all other forms of disruption than "outing." Moulton is defiant and will find ways to disrupt, wikilawyering around any restriction, see [4], which violates the letter of his agreement with SBJ. Gross incivility, tolerated on any WMF project, is harmful to all. --Abd 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Albatross is one of Moulton's Clown Socks, with Palomino of Certainty. He's been defying the ban[citation needed] at meta, with multiple edits to this request and elsewhere, including the edit below. See 68.160.132.104, 141.154.81.6, 141.154.9.14 --Abd 14:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I had a long conversation on the telephone with SB Johnny. He agreed with me that his attempted mediation had failed, and that I was relieved of my promise to him not to call the Death Eater Bitch by her real name. However he now proposes the same constraint for the purpose of completing the ongoing open community discussion about referencing published authors outside of Wikiversity by their real names, rather than by cutesy avatar names like Death Eater Bitch or Balonious Junk which they may be using on WMF projects or elsewhere in cyberspace. Mike has proposed a new rule about calling people by their preferred names, so going forward, I am adopting a new preferred name of my own. — Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Defiantly Silly 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd just like to throw my 2c in here. First of all, a global lock would do precious little. Moulton's local account is detached from his global one on the two wikis that he is active on, and as such the lock wouldn't even affect him.

Beyond that, I am not seeing why a global action should be taken to solve en.wikiversity drama. Moulton isn't vandalizing globally, and doesn't have an abusive user name - so why should he be globally locked? Sort en.wikiversity drama out there, stop bringing it to meta. This isn't the first time. If you want to block him, or to desysop everyone on that wiki, get consensus and /then/ come here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ajraddatz. Yes, the account is detached at WV. It can be reattached. Caprice could be globally locked. Activity at WV has cross-wiki implications. Custodians at WV are largely absent, only a very few appear to be watching at all, and consider themselves "involved," so they are very reluctant to act. This request was only filed after it became apparent that the most disruptive and offensive behavior was not being addressed. There is no custodian on Wikiversity who should be desysopped, at least not clearly. The problem is inaction, not disruptive action.
It is impossible to obtain local consensus with the kind of disruption being tolerated. The community flees. As to the meta RfC Ajraddatz cites, I did not file that, and it was not filed over "Wikiversity drama."
Wikiversity is effectively unprotected at this time, it is as if there were no sysops there. A steward could review the situation and locally block, which was a solution used for a time with Thekohser; a steward lifted the global lock and went to every wiki and blocked Thekohser, allowing local custodians to unblock. These were used to establish a default, and, typically, local wikis then discussed unblocking, and some did. If the global lock solution is followed, it appears that local whitelisting is now working so any admin could also lift the effect of a lock locally. It is not needed to wrest control from local custodians, but to deal with clear disruption, the abuse of WV contrary to its mission, and to harass users from other wikis, specifically present and former Wikipedia administrators, when local administration is, for whatever reason, unable to cope.
Two WV 'crats commented above, and the only argument against action was that Moulton would IP sock anyway. That's tolerating a bully, on the face, and shows part of why those custodians have been reluctant to act. They believe that WV doesn't have the labor available to handle the socking. That's a sign of system failure.
As before, Wikiversity custodians were informed of this request. The WV RCA request from KillerChihuahua was reopened, see v:Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Request action. --Abd 15:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ajraddatz. Abd, I suppose I could revision hide [5] but then I would also need to do the same for all of your edits to v:Cold fusion/Experts/Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. (Zomg, did I just "out" you with that link?) Really?! You are filing a complaint about Moulton using the same name that you included in a wv page title nearly a year ago?!?! It is time for you to stop running to meta every time you disagree with how things are handled at wv. This is getting disruptive. We are in the middle of a Community Review to clarify how our v:WV:Privacy policy applies to wmf editor names and you repeatedly opening requests here at meta is becoming more than a distraction. Could someone please close this request and let wv deal with the issues locally? At this point I would urge Abd to post a draft of any further complaints on wv first, and allow another member of the local community to copy it to meta if there is some consensus that this issue should be considered outside of wv. --mikeu talk 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I would prefer the issues that Abd raises be addressed outside of Wikiversity (or even outside of WMF-sponsored sites). My preference would be for them to be addressed by some academic community, such as Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society (where WMF Trustee and Wikiversitan Samuel Klein is an affiliate). Mr. Klein is routinely logged into the #wikiversity IRC channel, so he has a front-row seat on the shenanigans there, as well. Since Abd, Samuel Klein, Joseph Reagle, and I all live in Massachusetts, perhaps Mr, Klein and/or Mr. Reagle would be willing to convene a review, either at the Berkman Center, or online here (or anywhere in cyberspace) to discuss and review the issues that Mr. Lomax finds so compelling. —Moulton 16:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is not "editor names." The original request here wasn't for revision deletion, as such. The immediate cause is determined intention to use WV as a forum for harassment of WP admins because of resentments from 2007-2008. Mu301 and SBJ have been, as 'crats, unable to deal with massive local disruption of many kinds, not just now, but also in 2008 and 2010. I'm not closing this request, but it may certainly be closed by any steward. I will, indeed, file a Community Review on Wikiversity if this effort fails, but I'm not optimistic, because what has been tolerated includes revert warring, massive incivility, IP socking and the use of socks to multiply apparent user support, and that makes the finding of true consensus about impossible, people stay away. Previously, blatant canvassing was used to support an outcome desired by a 'crat, based on prior participation, with a closing by that 'crat, who was clearly involved. It's a mess. But none of it is urgent, except for the disruption by Moulton, which simply continues what he did in the past on Wikipedia, what led Jimbo to intervene in 2008, and on and on. It appears that both SBJ and Mikeu are willing to tolerate Moulton calling KillerChihuahua a "Death Eater Bitch," while he lies (yes, lies) about her history, in discussions that should not even be happening on Wikiversity. Instead of addressing serious disruption, Mikeu here points to what he sees as a flaw in my complaint, i.e, that I mentioned the use of my last name. So, folks, you can see the problem. They think I'm the problem, because I'm blowing the whistle. The use of my name was deliberately provocative; elsewhere, Moulton is claiming "personal responsibility," i.e., the possibility of lawsuits for libel, and he uses personal names to underscore this. Not just for me. --Abd 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
But I need to know, because if this can't be sorted, Wikiversity isn't safe. --Abd 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
...As long as en.wv have their own "custiodians" we can't act locally there. I don't think we can enforce the global lock by local block if a local 'crat "whitelisted" the user so the lock can't affect him, there's nothing we can do, the community need to discuss and/or place the local block by themselves. Stewards cannot reattach accounts neither. Stewards cannot make consensus, there need to be local consensus before a Steward can act, so I subscribe Ajraddatz words: "If you want to block him, or to desysop everyone on that wiki, get consensus and /then/ come here." -- Màñü飆¹5 talk es 16:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Global lock for Kissa95b

The following request is closed: done
Status:    Done
Yes check.svg Done --Matanya 16:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for Mysuka

The following request is closed: not done
Status:    Not done

This new account is making a crosswiki spam of english stub about en:Musiqq. See the bots edits to view his activity... As this account can't be contacted, please globally block him to stop his spam. Block time can be short, I hope he will understand that something is wrong with his manner to contribute and then he will so --Hercule 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Regards

--Hercule 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For now he seems to have stopped (not edited in the last half hour or so), but also, global blocking isn't yet available (only locking is, which is unable to communicate a message to the user, unfortunately). I'll keep an eye, and see what can be done about the articles. -- Mentifisto 23:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this request is now obsolete. Regards --Hercule 22:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Global locks for Jack Merridew's old accounts

The following request is closed: done
Status:    Done

and there are a lot of them... See:

The matrices are a bit out of date due to SUL, but they're mostly correct. I've scuttled most of the old accounts, but expect I'm missing some.

I would like all the old accounts blocked. Most of the ones in the matrices are pre-SUL so be careful; the list on the *talk* page is of accounts that are *not* mine; most are blocked Grawp impersonators (and fi:User:Diyarbakir and nl:User:Moby Dick are ones I believe to be Grawp that are *not* blocked). The three Moby Dick accounts on meta:, ro:, ad it: are simply other users and should not be blocked (not for any reasons I know of, at least).

I've been blanking the email on accounts I can still access and have been replacing the passwords with w:GUIDs where I can, but I believe there are some that I'm not recalling the passwords to ATM, but do have an email on file for (I have a lot of email accounts, too). If it is possible, I'd like the emails all blanked or disabled; I do not want to ever be able to get access to these accounts back.

Tomorrow, once the old accounts are sorted, I'll be back to talk about my Jack account (and will del-tag w:The Matrix... er, my matrices). fyi, this steward route was suggested to me by an en:arb (ok, John) as a 'no panic attacks' approach; plan 'a' was to change Jack's sul:password to a guid and post it on my en:talk and wp:ani to ensure a global block ;)

Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

clarification; the pre-SUL accounts would not be 'global locks' they would be individual blocks (right?). Jack Merridew 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe I've scuttled everything but Jack, which is next. Jack Merridew 01:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for Tospac

The following request is closed: done
Status:    Done

Locally blocked for block/lock evasion as the admitted sock of a globally locked user. See also:

Thanks. --Kylu 14:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Global block for 113.29.215.129

Status:    Not done

Crosswiki vandalism, including [6], [7], [8], and my:Talk:ရှိတ်စပီးယား. Also appears to be an open proxy. --:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Most edits go back to 2009/2010. So why the block? The IP hasn't been really active. -Barras 07:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No recent edits, marking as not done. Jafeluv 22:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)