Steward requests/Global/2012-10

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 October 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 78.172.148.176

Status:    Not done
This IP permanently changes my user page.examples.Please block it.Thanks in advance.George Animal 19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. No cross-wiki issue. I placed a local block on diq.wikipedia. -- Tegel (Talk) 17:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Global unblock for User:96.46.249.211

Status:    Not done

Description, evidence, diffs, etc.

THIS IS AN "IP" OF A US PUBLIC LIBRARY, LOCATED IN BROWARD COUNTY - FLORIDA. PLEASE CONTACT THE LIBRARY MANAGER: IT IS AGAINST THE US LAW TO BLOCK A PUBLIC SERVICE. USER VITUZZU SEEMS TO PLAY WITH THIS SERVICE AND HAS BLOCKED IT UNTIL "20121219203546". --96.46.249.211 14:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Speaking about the law, do you think that harassing and intimidating moral people through the Internet is something allowed ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 66.45.252.90

Status:    Not done

This IP address is an open proxy. Hide this revision because his offensive behavior and the use of false information. --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. Already globally blocked. -- Tegel (Talk) 15:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 95.135.15.230

Status:    Done

Please block this cross-wiki spammer (acted on commons, rw.wp, sg.wp, etc.). Mathonius (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be an open proxy, judging by its block on en.wp. Mathonius (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--Shizhao (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 200.133.2.18

Status:    Done

This user takes me war changes and this ip is open proxy. --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm looking at this page it seems that this is a local issue. There isn't even talked about the issue as the talkpage doesn't exist at the moment of writing. I advise to talk about the issue there, instead of just reverting eachother. --Wiki13 talk 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This IP address is an open proxy or a few of the SH Wiki through back its changes. --Kolega2357 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Shizhao (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 176.104.144.102

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spam [1]. --Orlodrim (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Shizhao (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Global unblock for 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609

Status:    Not done

This address is global blocked as an open proxy, but it is not one. It is the exit address of a VPN used solely by me. 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 00:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You are globally rangeblocked because you are using a webhost IP address. The issue is that potentially anyone could setup a VPN/proxy with a webhost. That said, though, this block should be made soft to not affect registered users.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you're kind of missing the point about the address not being open. Anyone can set up a VPN or proxy on any internet connection of any sort (home, office, or whatever). There's nothing special about web hosts in that regard. The issue you may be thinking of is that web hosts typically put virtual hosts for multiple users ("shared hosting") in a single server with a single IP address, so its outgoing connections from it can originate with multiple people. That is similar to an open proxy, which normally means something that forwards traffic from multiple users through the same address, so I can see why you might treat shared hosting the same way. This particular address is a single-user static address assigned to my personal VPN, not something that serves multiple users. The ISP supplying it does all sorts of services, possibly including shared web hosting, but this address is not used for shared hosting of any sort. Thanks. 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 05:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. Webhosts are exactly that, website hosts, and that includes proxies. If the VPN ranges are different completely from hosting ranges, we can make the block more specific, but all we can do is soften the block if not. What if a vandal sets up a personal VPN on this webhost?--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Every ISP that I can think of of hosts websites. This isn't any different. What if a vandal sets up a personal VPN on Comcast or AT&T? It's the same thing. If they set up a VPN on this ISP, their VPN would have a different address than my VPN, so you'd want to block their address and not mine. The big range block is inappropriate. 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 05:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
According to WHOIS, your webhost is not an ISP, it's dedicated. Actually, many personal VPNs, not necessarily webhost VPNs, are treated the same - people in China sometimes must get IP block exemption because they use blocked VPNs to get around the great Firewall. We probably can't make an exception for you unless you tell us your subnet, and whether your webhost separates VPNs and websites. Comcast and AT&T VPNs usually don't cause much disruption, and are blocked on an individual basis. However, allowing editing from VPNs is almost like an open proxy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about dedicated. The provider has its own ASN with addresses assigned, and sells connectivity through them to customers and I thought that was the definition of an ISP (my bad if I used the term incorrectly). I don't think I have a subnet, I have a handful of non-contiguous ipv6 addresses but this is the only one I actually use at the moment. I can guarantee that this address is not used for shared hosting. I don't think there is any address separation in the provider's ranges. I don't think there is likely to be much shared hosting in the range. There are a lot of non-shared web servers and a lot of game servers but the addresses would be hard to tell apart. Have you gotten actual vandalism from this provider? 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 05:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
According to your hosting provider's website, it does appear to provide transit, but only for large businesses. However, the global block should be softened, and we can make exceptions if you manage to give us a subrange to block so as to not affect VPN. Yes, we have gotten actual vandalism, per this. We can do little but soften this rangeblock as to not affect registered users unless we know how your provider is setup.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any vandalism in that link, just a bunch of blocks saying "open proxy". The only specific address I saw listed had no visible edits. I don't think it's possible to separate VPN addresses from other applications within the range. I can tell you though, it's not like AT&T where ipv6 users all get enormous address blocks. It should be reasonable to unblock the range and block individual addresses that cause problems. It would be better than nothing to just unblock this single address while leaving the rest of the range blocked, but I don't know if the wiki software allows that. 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 06:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually don't understand an issue with that report: it looks like MarcoAurelio blocked 2608:f358/32 in July, then other people blocked some subranges of that /32 in August. And I don't understand what the subrange blocks did, if the bigger range was already blocked. 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 06:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm probably going to sign off for the night. It looks like the host has some other addresses I can edit from, if I can figure out how to reconfigure the VPN, so what happens with this address is not a big deal, it's just annoying and makes me feel like ipv6 is being treated as a ghetto. If you can do something about it, it's appreciated, but otherwise I'll set up something else. Thanks for the responses. 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 06:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There is some irony in that I can turn off the VPN and edit directly through the wifi network I'm connected through, which (since it's unsecured) is literally an open proxy; but the static address that belongs to me personally is blocked as an open proxy even though it isn't one. Standard Wikipedia brilliance, I guess. 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 21:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, not anyone can use your CAFE, only those in geographic proximity. Unfortunately the best I can recommend for you is to make an account and then either have the webhost block softened or your account given exemption to the block, because webhosts tend to house proxies.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The block covers a range of IP addresses which I believe has been problematic. Would you consider creating an account, and we can add a global exemption for the account? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see any actual vandalism coming from the range, according to that stalk report (maybe there are deleted or non-English edits that I can't see or can't read). I couldn't imagine this large or this long a range block being applied to an ipv4 block. 2607:F358:1:FED5:22:0:BF9C:8609 16:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's unlikely we'd unblock this range. In fact, it's also possible to block the IPv4 range for a similar period, it's just that we're currently whacking IPv6 proxies as IPv6 was enabled only a few months ago.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done two weeks without further response. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block/unblock for 2607:f298:1:105::d77:68b7

Status:    Not done

*IP address xwiki-contribs xwiki-date ST IP info WHOIS robtexgblockglistabuselogaddress ipchecker

Hello,

My IP address cited above is not an open proxy as assumed by the blocker. Rather this is the IP address of a machine that I control and access via SSH and through which I tunnel my local connection for reasons of privacy. I always edit logged-in to my account which I have held for many years.

As the blocking message indicates I have edited ar.wikipedia via this IP few days before the block was effected, as can be seen at: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5:%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF

Please remove this block as there is no other way for me to contribute to Wikipedia since I also run a Tor exit node on my home computer, and as such, due to another policy, my home IP is automatically blocked by Wikipedia!

I run a Tor exit node for the same reason I have been editing in Wikipedia for years: These are means to enable people access to knowledge. A matter of principle to me.

I must also say that I find no justification for the Wikipedia policy of blocking editing via proxies, including Tor, unless other clear patterns of vandalism are accompanying this mode of access.

Editing anonymously is a right for those who choose to do so, and it should be respected as long as they cause no harm.

Moreover, editors who edit through proxies - Tor included - while logged-in to their Wikipedia user accounts should certainly not be blocked. These are not being really anonymous since they are logged-in, and their choice of method of access, in the majority of cases, is due to circumventing censorship or eavesdropping.

Awaiting your reply, --A. Gharbeia (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Proxies are too much of a resource to vandals for us to allow editing from them. The best we can do for you is give you global IP block exemption.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
IPBE granted — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 2607:F0D0::/32 and other Softlayer ranges

Status:    Not done

Dedicated servers-only webhost with no ADSL services. Range contains several proxies (see stalktoy).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC) In addition:

all belong to the same webhost.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I am not comfortable blocking these when they have not been abused. Stewards have generally only been blocking where there is the necessity. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 67.90.47.0/24

Status:    Done

Per User:MF-Warburg/Unexisting image spam.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Black check.svg Already done by Tegel, I don't see the need for the rangeblock. Snowolf How can I help? 01:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 49.128.62.151

Status:    Done

Please consider blocking this cross-wiki spammer globally. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. -- Tegel (Talk) 18:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 89.221.48.142

Status:    Done
All changes are in the nature of vandalism (see global contributions). --WikiUserFS (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--Shizhao (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 220.161.148.150

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki comment spammer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 78.28.204.157

Status:    Done

Adding Russian and Polish names for non-Russian/Polish athletes (cross-wiki). --Stryn (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

78.28.204.157 -> Black check.svg Already done by Tegel; 91.200.65.209 Yes check.svg Done for 3 days, let's see if lenghtier is needed but I'd rather avoid it if possible. Snowolf How can I help? 09:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 210.117.6.135

Status:    Done

Please see global contributions, Cross wiki spam --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block/unblock for Hasina Khatun (WMUK)

Status:    Done

Hasina Khatun is not a Wikimedia UK employee anymore. I'd like this account to be globally locked so that she cannot use it to represent the UK chapter. The account was active on four wikis - uk.wikimedia, en.wp, commons and ca.wp. I'm the office manager at the UK chapter. There is precedent for global locks for chapter employees who have left - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global&diff=4162433&oldid=4162380#Global_lock.2Funlock_for_Isabelle_Yates_.28WMUK.29. Many thanks, and please contact me if any questions, --Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

done. Will you please notify the user of the request and our actions to complete this request. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for 96.127.156.50

Status:    Done

cross wiki spammer, web host, please consider range blocking (96.127.128.0/18) --Shanmugamp7 (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for IPs

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spam --Ignacio Flag of Uruguay.svg (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The last one is Black check.svg Already done by Shizhao for 1 year as an open proxy. The other two IPs aren't needed anymore. Trijnsteltalk 23:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Global block for IP

Status:    Done

Recent edits on en, nl and commons are all vicious harassments of MoiraMoira, Trijnstel and TBloemink, using WWII inspired language. Please globally block this account for a while. Lymantria (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe this was already done via rangeblocks by Trijnstel for a month. I'm not a rangeblock expert though — TBloemink talk 13:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. :) I globally blocked four ranges of Vodafone for 1 month - the ones RonaldB tracked and blocked on nl-wiki too. Trijnsteltalk 13:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Thanks. Lymantria (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Global lock for Empetpinggir

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spam.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Luckas msg 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Tesic1

Status:    Done

New incarnation of the Serbian travel spammer. Please see [2] and [3]. Jafeluv (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Luckas msg 12:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Evidencija blokiranja suradnika

Status:    Done

For several days an unknown anonymous inflicts suffering several Wikipedia administrators constantly open accounts with unacceptable username. User accounts have been opened in several series of batches. For several days harassing administrators. --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This accounts open by Kolega2357 (talk · contribs) aka Velimir Ivanovic (talk · contribs) aka Oliver Nedeljkovic (talk · contribs). Only this user vandalise more projects. 66.45.252.90 06:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Locked. Администратор, Turska, Croatian, Адолф Хитлер is no global account--Shizhao (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Босна је Турска

Status:    Done

Abusive user names with the meaning of hate speech. --Kolega2357 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

All locked. Ruslik (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Otvaranje novog korisničkog naloga je sprečeno

Status:    Done

Global lock and hide these accounts are used because of abuse administrator. --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ruslik (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for LTA:ISECHIKA(いせちか)for Japanese Wikipedia 20121013

Status:    Done

Please lock there accounts.Vandalism of Japanese Wikipediadiscussreference 1reference 2reference 3).--Taisyo (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC) , addition--Taisyo (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC) , addition2--Taisyo (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

All locked, not hidden or oversighted. Please say so if it's personal information that needs to be hidden (I don't speak Japanese). Trijnsteltalk 16:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Laznjak

Status:    Done

The Serbian holiday spammer again, this time with a new MO: vandalising an article with one account and then "reverting" with another account, inserting the spamlink in the process. Sneaky stuff. Jafeluv (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Trijnsteltalk 19:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

One more sock from a few days ago, looks like I've forgotten to report that one. Jafeluv (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done too. :) Trijnsteltalk 20:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Nokia Lumia 920 and 林人權

Status:    Done

LTA 影武者 on zhwiki. Blocked on zh and ja. --Makecat (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Shizhao (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Uklonjen cjelokupni sadržaj stranice

Status:    Done

Abusive and not acceptable usernames. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg locked--Shizhao (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Uklanjanje promjene suradnika suradnika

Status:    Done

Abusive and not acceptable usernames. --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Quentinv57 (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for FireBlooD

Status:    Done

Spamming Russian links for many articles, --Stryn (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Shizhao (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Global locks for Dskf... spambots

Status:    Done

Eleven accounts matching this pattern have been locked. Please consider locking these remaining accounts as well. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Global locks for TecnoManiac and ThePonseMan

Status:    Not done

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBlade28 (talk)

<non-steward comment> Apparently, TecnoManiac and ThePonseMan are retired users of the Spanish Wikipedia. I don't see any good reason to lock those accounts. Mathonius (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mathonius, not done then. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Marcos Baker

Status:    Done

Please lock this spam-only account. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Y5a5to11

Status:    Done

Chinese blogpost spammer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterSymonds (talk)

Global locks for Jersey.. spambots

Status:    Done

These pattern accounts were created almost simultaneously. One of them, Jersey48, is already blocked and locked. Please consider locking the rest as well. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done but there are still some matches absent from the list that are unlocked (for example, some accounts created 2 hours ago on small wikis). Can somebody handle this, please ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
All done as of now. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Cnithiaubx

Status:    Done

Please consider locking this spam-only account (see ki:Special:DeletedContributions/Cnithiaubx for more information). Mathonius (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Bencmq (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Global locks for Guoyqi spambots

Status:    Done

Please lock this group of pattern spambots. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for ВП

Status:    Not done

Abusive and offensive user names. --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, hide usernames from the public. --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done This seems to be a bit of an ambit claim. The local wikis should be able to deal with them, and if they want our assistance then they can bring the matter here. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for LaFalangedeDios

Status:    Done

Please lock this cross-wiki vandalism-only account. By the way, he might be related to MehmetVI (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) and Elecrocentauro (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date • CA • ST • lwcheckuser), so a checkuser investigation could be helpful to put an end to this. Mathonius (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Confirmed Diffs would be helpful. Also looks to be
  • AdobeAsirio
  • LaCabraDeBabilonia
All locked. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Uwqj9sqv05 and other spambots

Status:    Done

Please consider locking these spambots and please checkuser Aiiu4cny14 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser), Kpvx1jkz41 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) and Slnj2tor64 (contr · deleted · block · log · block log · CA · guc · checkuser · lwcheckuser) at incubator. Mathonius (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Mentifisto — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Trxcccl683 et cetera

Status:    Done

Please consider locking these pattern spambots. Mathonius (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Done.‴ Teles «Talk ˱@ L C S˲» 22:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Seoskitur

Status:    Done

Crosswiki spammer, first vandalising by IP and then "reverting" and adding spamlinks. Please block the IP as well. Jafeluv (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Snowolf already blocked 31.211.6.83 for 3 days, but blocking the user should be referred to local administrators.--Jusjih (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Please reconsider. This guy will keep registering new accounts no matter what we try, but the least we can do is make sure they're not able to reuse any of their old sock accounts. Previous socks are already locked; the latest reports are here and here. Jafeluv (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Locked Locked Seoskitur, I remember who this guy is, it's a LTA Jafeluv's been dealing with for quite a while and that I've handled requests for before, it is him and should be locked when found. Snowolf How can I help? 11:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Global unblock for 50.16.230.151

Status:    complete

This is the IP address of my AWS EC2 instance. I use this server as the endpoint of a SOCKS5-over-SSH tunnel to encrypt network traffic when using public wifi networks It is an AWS elastic IP assigned to my account, but is being caught up in the general AWS block: "Cross-wiki spam: Amazon Web Services - Service has been used for trojan/spam attacks - Little or no good edits." Also e-mailing info@wikimedia.org, per instructions on block message. --DataGazetteer (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I can grant you an IP block exemption on EnWiki, where you mainly edit. Ruslik (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please -- that would be great. Thank you. 50.16.230.151 11:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have a global account, we could grant it an IP exemption. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I just followed the appropriate link to activate my SUL across all of the wikimedia projects. DataGazetteer (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you -- much appreciated. The preceding unsigned comment was added by DataGazetteer (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Global unlock for unypoly

Status:    Not done

unypoly blocked in korean wikipedia in 2006. unypoly blocked other wiki is true. but Unpoly@ko.wikibooks is impersonation account. also, unypoly's other account Betalph blocked in korean wikibooks and wiktionary. but two admin account blocked betalph at korean wikibooks and wiktionary is same person (아흔)[4][5]

Betalph blocked in korean wiktionay as (Vandalism-only account): + continual hassment and extortion, and korean wikibooks as Attempting to harass other users: defaming, extreme disruptive user, create massive trash

But in korean wikibooks, there were dispute in article spliting problem. Betalph said spliting article is OK, But Aheun said spliting article is not OK. and aheun delete article. Many user in korean wikibooks criticize Aheun. [6] and Aheun claimed spliting article is trash and blocked several user as multiple account.

IN korean wiktionary, also aheun blocked several user reasonless. ko:백:사랑방/2010년 제31주#자매프로젝트에서의 관리자 권한 남용에 관하여 it has been confirmed 아흔 blocked several user reasonless.

exclude korean wikimedia project managed by same user 아흔, Unypoly blocked only in korean wikipedia. Also unypoly's account Betalph contribut well in korean wikisource, wikimedia commons,... So global lock for unypoly violate Global blocks or global ban rule (It required block in two or more projects as legal and need consensus, but unypoly only blocked in korean wikipedia legally)

Also it has problem some user has not confirmed by physical evidence and (s)he debating korean wikipedia and saying they is not sockpuppetty. In Steward requests/Global/2012-09 Sotiale said I will report more recent sockpuppet accounts(surely confirmed accounts, not vague and discussing accounts). but Many of them blocked without checkusing evidence. When meta steward blocked these account, Taeyang1234 sued his/her block for kowp Arbitration Requests ko:위키백과:중재 요청/사용자:taeyang1234

I think global block violate wikimedia rule. I request unblock whole user by seems multiple account of unypoly. --Doroamitabul (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The account Unypoly is not globally locked, so stewards can't do anything. You should ask it locally to sysops of the Korean Wikipedia or Wikibooks. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, if you think that local sysops are abusing their tools, the right place for complaining is the stewards' noticeboard or the requests for comment. If some users have been blocked without any valuable reason, please show us evidence and we will do the necessary. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I re-request. I made mistake because Unypoly is not Unified account, so unypoly has not locked. but other account or maybe unypoly account locked at sep, 2012 by meta Steward requests. I re-request unlock SUL accounts locked in Steward requests/Global/2012-09#Global lock for Unypoly and Steward requests/Global/2012-09#Global lock for Unypoly's more puppet accounts. (Nearmiss, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc)

--Doroamitabul (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your mischief is excessive.. It cannot be tolerated anymore. If you want to anything, please show stewards your trust. Your account is intended and blocked by kowiki admin. First, What is your original account? If you cannot suggest your account, Would you please show community confidence? If you're correct, You can do that. --Sotiale (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sotiale, may we know why Doroamitabul was blocked at kowiki ? And in your requests for lock mentioned above, you're telling us that these users have been confirmed to be the same. Can you please give us some link showing that ? Thanks -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
First, his blocked reason: sockpuppet using/Blocking evasion. Second, my request list is based on 분당선M's collect list. Unypoly cannot be catched by CU. As I suggest, He uses many IPs, even ISP, therefore, CU is no meaning, and cannot be evidence. Such reason, kowiki community has catched him as editing pattern. All 분당선M's list accounts were blocked as Unypoly editing pattern(You can find block reason 'Unypoly' and '유니폴리'). At I requested time, at first, I filtered 분당선M's list for blocking unfair lock. And I checked contribution pattern, his self announcement, etc. And I reported it on Meta. It is processed, and I announced kowiki village pump. If it has problem, any users bring this request into question. --Sotiale (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm sure that stewards who processed these lists had a good reason to do it. By the way, if the user clearly behaves the same (same edit pattern, etc), it's clearly more meaningful than CU evidence. I just wanted to be sure that there was a good reason to consider these users as confirmed. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, link has error. Correct link is ko:사용자:분당선M/사용자:Unypoly. And I'm sure, Doroamitabul is Unypoly. Doroamitabul suggests A-heun, admin of Korea wiktionary, wikibooks and crat of Korean wikibooks. This case is very- very old thing. Now, very few people know that case. Good, He always shoots himself in the foot. --Sotiale (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey poly? stward already said this resquit is not done. and Doroamitabul account is bloked in korean wikipedia [7] --DangSunM (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done as noted above — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Zjjewelry2

Status:    Done

These pattern accounts are most likely spambots. Please consider locking (or investigating and then locking) them. Mathonius (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please lock these as well. Mathonius (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Locked by Trijnstel -- Quentinv57 (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Silesianus

Status:    Done

User posted his password on own userpage. One sysop changed it, but better would be global block --JAn Dudík (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Black check.svg Already done by PeterSymonds: "compromised account - locking until verification of identity received (currently in progress on cs.wiki)". Trijnsteltalk 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Global unlock for Yopie

Status:    Done

I was globally locked by Vituzzu for cross-wiki edit warring in 29 July 2012. I know for what and I promise, that this will never happens again. It is hard for me, to be 3 months off WP, and I hope, that this is enough for protection of the project and community. Again, I understand that cross wiki warring is bad. Thank you for unlock --89.177.147.83 21:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done but that's your last chance. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Global lock for Fishes32p and Fishes03a

Status:    Done

These simultaneously created pattern accounts belong to this group of locked spambots. Please consider locking these as well. Mathonius (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done MBisanz talk 05:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)