Steward requests/Global/2012-01

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 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Contents

Requests for global (un)block

Global block for 204.45.133.74

Status:    Done

it is an open proxy Esteban 14:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Blocked for one year. Thanks for reporting. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Global block for User:114.44.172.14

Status:    Not done

crosswiki abuse --Kegns 07:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

    • He's already stopped vandalising your userpage. I'm oversighting those edits.Bencmq 09:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 91.198.92.152

Status:    Done

Crosswiki vandalism in Swedish. Blocked on da, de and nl (rangeblock 91.198.92.0/24) today. --Lymantria 13:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

    • Already dealt with in steward channel - 6 months global block now. MoiraMoira 13:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Global block/unblock for 83.160.84.254

Status:    Done

This IP address has been inserting false information into articles on diverse projects. It is already blocked on enwiki (1 year), frwiki (2 weeks for now) and nlwiki (1 year as well). I would suggest a long global block on this IP to prevent further disruption from it. Thanks. --Elfix 22:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Monsieur Elfix. --Vituzzu 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :D Elfix 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Global unblock for ScanSafe proxy service

Status:    Done

When attempting to edit my new talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:72.37.171.100

I get this: "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 PeterSymonds (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given was "Cross-wiki abuse".

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 26 May 2012 at 18:48."

which tells me to edit my talk page with an unblock request, i.e., Catch-22. I understand, if this is a shared and abused account, not allowing IP editing from it, but please allow account creation, or at least existing accounts to use it. We went to this ISP for the extensive anti-spyware and anti-phishing software it runs. -72.37.171.100 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Comment So you are saying that it is a proxy, but not necessarily an open proxy? We do not necessarily know that it is a controlled proxy but just see it as an abusing IP address. Which may or may not change our approach. billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
According to our corporate IT Dept. proxy cutover to 72.37.171.100 was accomplished at the end of Tuesday, November 29, 2011. This is a controlled and paid for proxy, and AT&T is the provider of the Cisco Scansafe product to us. -72.37.171.100 21:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed to anonymous only. Ruslik 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 117.11.0.0/16 and User:125.37.0.0/16

Status:    Not done

That range of IP users did vandalism in the paragraph of 'fleet' in a lot of thread of airlines. That range of IP user were globally blocked for 1 year at last year, but after the block expired, those users did vandalism again by adding the aircraft which are retired and input the incorrect capacity (That's mean the same method with before). For example:

It is not difficult to suspect that they are the same person from their contributions. I think that they (maybe he/she) didn't make any reflection during the block period. Therefore I would like to make a 2-years global block request for user 125.37.0.0/16. Thanks! Kenwong 03:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Comment They are pretty big blocks to global across the whole of WMF. I would think that they should either be whittled down (125.37.112.0/20 and 117.11.160.0/20), or spam blocked, or consider local blocks. It may be better to refer some of this to checkusers to get an opinion before acting upon such a request. billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
They only edit enwiki and zhwiki. Please, use local blocks. Ruslik 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Global unblock for 198.22.122.123

Status:    Not done

Not an open proxy. Publically accessable computer don't constitute an open proxy. If they did then it would be necessary to block all library and wi-fi hotspots. This is not the case. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.22.122.123 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 6 January 2012‎ (UTC)

I can vouch that this IP belongs to a Best Buy, though I can't really "verify" it... Hurricanefan25 23:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, when specific IPs are used by known cross-wikipedia vandals, it remains in the best interest of the collected projects to have that IP blocked for the time being. -- Avi 15:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Global unblock for 69.56.173.82

Status:    Done

Please reconsider unblocking my IP. My unblock request was denied in August without ample explanation. If you choose to deny my request again, please explain to me what "associated with a hosting company" means and why this has any bearing on whether this IP should be allowed to edit pages. I am unable to find anything in Wikipedia's policy against editing pages from a Linode.

I have pulled the original request from the history for your convenience:

This IP did have an open proxy for a period of about 2 months. It has been shut down now since the end of March 2011. --Curlypaul924 16:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It i still associated with a hosting company. I would rather leave it as is for now. --Jyothis 16:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "associated with a hosting company." The IP is associated with a Linode VM, which I have been running for many years now. It was my mistake that there was an open proxy and I have fixed it. I use the (no longer open) proxy to recompress images before they are sent to my PC over a (slow) internet connection. --Curlypaul924 03:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

--208.54.44.133 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked, does not appear to be an open proxy anymore. Ruslik 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 72.18.225.106

Status:    Done

Spamming on multiple wikis. Please see global contribs. Elockid 01:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by Vituzzu --Bencmq 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Global block for Erik Evermtus

Status:    Done

If so please remove the block of global and local block (id, wiki) User: Erik Evermtus as a replacement for Erik Evrest account because this account in the meta just do 1Xcanvassing ([1]) and also only charged with abusing multiple accounts as'and because the main account (User: Erik Evrest) has been blocked. Mahali syarifuddin 08:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by PeterSymonds. --Vituzzu 11:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 184.44.131.140

Status:    Not done

Cross-wiki abuse; see en:User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67 for related info. Hurricanefan25 17:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Global blocks aren't generally used for IPs with contributions on two wikis, especially when there are already local blocks present. If autoblock is enabled on enwiki that will catch any accounts he might try to use from that IP. That being said, I'm not a steward, and someone might think differently on this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Ruslik 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Global lock for Profesint

Status:    Done
Done. --Mercy 09:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Pfuuuu

Status:    Done

Edgar. Savhñ 09:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Mercy 09:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Leiderautor

Status:    Done
Done. --Mercy 11:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Laco.Fekete.Fasz

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism, personal attacks --Schniggendiller 23:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ruslik 14:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Willy Wimmer, Polen

Status:    Done
Done by PeterSymonds. --Schniggendiller 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for S 3b

Status:    Done
Done by PeterSymonds. --Schniggendiller 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for WWWP

Status:    Done

Edgar von Webern --Schniggendiller 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by Trijnstel. -Barras 16:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Global unlock for Dsymons

Status:    Done

Our school IP range is blocked due to vandalism by many students here, however it would be useful for myself, as an employee to be able to edit pages when logged into my account. Thanks.

Is it locally or globally blocked? Ruslik 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Globally Dsymons 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
So, you want a global IP block exempt to bypass this range that cause collateral damage? --IluvLovato123 15:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I want my username only to be allowed so I can still make edits from a blocked IP range, I hope this makes sense? Dsymons 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
As it seems you're only active on the English Wikipedia, so I would advice you to request an IP block exempt there. Please see the given information on en:Wikipedia:IP block exemption. If you need help with that or if you still would like to request a global IP block exempt (which you can request here), feel free to ask. Trijnstel 16:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I granted you local IP block exemption. Ruslik 14:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for various troll sock accounts

Status:    Done

I indeffed most of these on enwiki for vandalism, but they are now branching out to upload vandal images to commons. They are also obviously one user. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Störkraft18

Status:    Not done

"de:Störkraft" was a german far-right rock band. The number 18 is a code for "Adolf Hitler" in neo-Nazi circles. --Holder 09:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Appart from the name the user has done nothing to warrant the lock. Ruslik 08:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Global unlock for User:Proabivouac

Status:    Not done

Recently, it has come to my attention that Proabivouac was globally locked. Before, I assumed he was merely locally blocked. He is blocked on two projects: en.wiki and meta. On Meta, he was blocked for "trolling" and it was an indefinite block without much discussion and was followed by a lock. Before the global ban policy was discussed, locks like this were common. He was active in many Wikis and there was little input from the community. I was told by two Stewards that they consider the global locks from the past as global bans, and that makes some sense. However, I am putting this here just to get some more input on how to act regarding old locks that would barely meet the qualification for global bans now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done. RfC is a better venue for this sort of thing. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for an unlock - see [2]. A steward changed the title. I was asking for confirmation if this will be considered a lock or a global block based on the policy distinctions that are being drawn. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Since the global ban policy is a recent one, all users locked before the policy came into place are not globally banned. The user you name probably would have been considered for a global ban, given the abusive nature of his edits, but at the moment, this is a standard global lock. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Then what would be the procedure for an individual to address them, especially with the nature of locks being intended for issues that others have not been locked over and claimed that we need global bans to deal with them? It seemed somewhere along the line the culture and rationale radically shifted and there should probably be only one set of criteria. I would quote what you said over IRC but apparently people don't like me to quote or summarize (for two different reasons) what was said privately. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think an RfC is the most appropriate procedure. Since stewards only globally lock users as a last resort, the chances of them being overturned uncontroversially are slim, unless a mistake was made. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I know what you think already but I do want to make sure that others agree and don't think that the opinions are behind closed doors. :) Are other Stewards fine with having locked accounts for behavioral reasons be able to be submitted through an RfC for unlock as per the unglobal ban procedures? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Peter, re "abusive", let's be specific. I don't lie, or even sockpuppet; I don't vandalize anything, or edit articles in a biased manner. What you call "abusive" is uncovering the misdeeds of Wikimedia administrators and, of course, "outing.' I uncovered abusive administrators long before I was banned and got a shower of worthless "barnstars" for it, along with some enemies. It had been my understanding that "outing' was forbidden – until en.wp's ArbCom outed me, and publicized pages of vicious attacks from a pseud against my real name. I decided to fight back. Since then I've endured bullying and abuse at nearly every turn, from named editors who crush IPs like bugs to IRC adminpuppets swooping across projects to silence the "banned user.". I believe my last action on meta was to sink a reconfirmation which really needed to be sunk – at least, Cary Bass came around to seeing our point of view. I took the scrambling of my password as a fair price to pay.67.168.135.107 05:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm not requesting some "RfC." It's funny how you decry "personal attacks" when wikiland procedures are hardly anything but formalized collective personal attacks. I simply wish to be left alone and forgotten by en.wp's ArbCom, and allowed to comment as an IP like any other random user. And I'd like en.wp ArbCom to delete its secret files on me, which Wikimedia Foundation hosts upon its servers in contradiction to its purportedly charitable mission..67.168.135.107 07:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, this is nonsense: "Since stewards only globally lock users as a last resort…" Locking my account hasn't, doesn't and can't stop me from identifying anyone. It can't even stop me from commenting as an IP. All it's done is prevent me from contributing to Wikimedia projects – which is your loss, not mine – and ensure that I'm treated poorly, falsely accused of socking, etc. when I'm here, as are all IPs who comment in project space. I wonder if you can't see a connection between this poor treatment and the identifications which sometimes follow.
Well, my IP isn't blocked here. I don't see any emergencies arising, do you? Unfortunately, the problem I'd arrived on commons to address – a Wiki UK trustee who fakes references, steals copyrighted material, and lies about it – is still with you, and is still being discussed offsite. Blocking me does not make it go away.67.168.135.107 20:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Knowalles, 101 Luftballons, SwedishSven

Status:    Done

This user and his sock puppets have been cross-wiki vandalizing since January of 2011. Several of these accounts have already been closed on several wikis (see SULs for the three accounts), but new user names are created to continue his work (specifically 101 Luftballons in May of 2011). In his home Wiki (NL) his extensive network of puppets were exposed and in a very nice treatment all puppets were closed down in January of 2011, but he was allowed to maintain his main account (Knowalles) [3]. In the related ArbCom case it was explicitly stated that any further USE (not ABuse) would be reason for full blockage of all accounts [4]. In October of 2011 his cross-wiki vandalism spree restarted in full swing [5]. Based on this 101 Luftballons was blocked in EN, Simple, SV [6]. SwedishSven and Istochleukzonnaam were already globally locked in February of 2011 [7], please now add all known suck puppets to avoid any further disruption of this wonderful project (101 Luftballons; Avkitah; UbiDubiumIbiLibertas; OreHnAsaWyhtraCcM; VHRZG; Knowalles; *RollesEyes*; Lamb of God). --Whaledad 01:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Already done. --Mercy 14:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for 覃伟雄

Status:    Done

see User:Kleuske/Huang_Xianfan, since 2009, they began to establish articles across Wikipedias to make self-advertisement & recently they become active again. They are confirmed to be at least 2 (by IP ?)groups according to the result of CU. --Zhxy 519 04:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by Shizhao and me. --Mercy 14:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for (hidden)

Status:    Done

No contributions, but username is offensive and if he were to edit on other projects (I blocked him on enwiki) it might be problematic. I suggest a lock and hide on it, asked for it on irc an hour ago but no stewards online there. --Snowolf How can I help? 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for (name hidden)

Status:    Done

Obviously not here to contribute constructively. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Huuuuuu Anmelder Xamax

Status:    Done

Edgar von Webern, speedy delete/oversight needed --Schniggendiller 08:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by Matanya. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Global block for He.henrik

Status:    Not done

Globally block someone to infinity.

thanks

--He.henrik 12:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the reason? Ruslik 14:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Accused vandalism.

a mental patient for 6 weeks to keep been vandalizing open proxy, is free webhost, fake user agents and allegedly sent three times a XFF header, which I used the IP domain.

There were a few large and small conflicts, in that period was blocked, and I am Electrical Engineering student, therefore, claim to have the necessary knowledge of the vandalism, but was not taken into account that in that period was not have time (projects, seminar work Creating.)

vote is only two days.

If indeed I had been a vandal, you have not used a proxy, which fills the XFF field.

This is because I feel like finally went to the editing of Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, not too good for my English.

He.henrik 17:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you ask Binàris to explain better your reasons? --Vituzzu 11:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Ruslik 14:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Global unlock for Raura

Status:    Done

Haven't vandalized at Wikipedia since the account was created. And this user, actually it's me, doesn't use open proxy, but I understand why you judge those IPs are from open proxy servers. I can't edit anything on my talk page to request, so I hope I come to the right place. Thanks in advance for your help! --111.250.97.96 04:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is with regards to the global block of 111.250.0.0/17 --Bencmq 04:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Your IP address range has been unblocked. Best regards, --Mercy 09:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a million!!!!!!!!!!! --111.250.97.96 09:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Tinymatt16

Status:    Done

Cross wiki spammer - still has some contribs that need eliminating too - thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by Matanya. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Housirousirousihousilouis

Status:    Done

Edgar von Webern --TBloemink talk 07:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. — Tanvir | Talk ] 07:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock and hide for (abusive username)

Status:    Done

Obvious - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Mercy 09:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for various cross wiki spammers

Status:    Done

I think these are multiple wiki spammers - see my recent post on CU list - assuming I'm correct all need locking and probably cleaning up if they've edited on wikis other than "mine"! Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Mercy 09:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks for reporting. We stewards should really work on the way those spammers are detected... what about an other counter-vandalism IRC channel ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for ErmatingerSu

Status:    Done

Edgar von Webern -Schniggendiller 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

done by PeterSymonds. --Schniggendiller 16:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for ErmatingerHäller

Status:    Done
Done. --Mercy 09:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Arlenemacias

Status:    Done

Cross wiki puppet spammer - the absence of spam here means the abuse filter is working :) --Herby talk thyme 09:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Prakashrajjj

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spam, --Savhñ 06:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by Matanya. --Mercy 08:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for spam accounts

Status:    Done

Both are spam accounts and from the same IP (from CU). Neither have been very successful :) however the abuse logs show they are trying so may try elsewhere --Herby talk thyme 12:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Trijnstel 12:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Global unlock for KnowIG

Status:    Not done

Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now are candidates for a global lock. Please include links to block histories or other evidence of abuse on other projects, and indicate where the account is still active. Accounts whose names are offensive or abusive are also eligible for locking, and may be hidden from logs as well. Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them Look at the rationale above. This user in it's history has not used any legal threats or posted anything disgusting. It has not violated other principles which are grounds for multiple indefs and has a clean name. It was also used in a constructive sense and only went cross wiki when admins refused to talk and carried on blocking every two seconds. Issue resolved and so far has not been treated like a human being Unblock please. --2.100.239.237 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

KnowIG's activity on English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia and Commons is a clear xwiki abuse case. He abused the emailUser system, of course it's not going to show on contribution history. Bencmq 01:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)