Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2012-05

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Global disruption by BrandonSkyPimenta/HTFFanBrandon04

The former disrupted the English Wikipedia (enwiki) in February and was subsequently blocked indefinitely. He then moved on to (mediawikiwiki) as the latter and caused similar disruption, which I blocked him indefinitely for. He's now about to disrupt (the third-party) (under the first username). He's a young editor who I think needs to wait until he's in his mid-teens before he can be allowed to come back here. I don't know what good a global lock would do, but a global ban for like 5 years may be a wise move.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I believe this account, based on the username, to also be an account of his.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
There's also Special:CentralAuth/BrandonSkyHTFFan04 and Special:CentralAuth/BrandonSkyPim.
Full list as of this time:
There are likely more. πr2 (tc) 04:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Added ItsMeBrandonSky. πr2 (tc) 04:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
If the person is problematic across multiple wikis, then we can look to impose Global blocks#Global user blocks which would only be implemented by a lock. billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a pretty good idea; for the record I've blocked the third account on the list on Deng (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For your information, I've compiled an overview. Mathonius (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All the above accounts and Special:CentralAuth/FrequentIntenseMatureSuggestiveThemes are now locked, for the record, including his first account. This pretty much, then, is a de-facto global block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see this post. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This clarifies a lot of things, and I really thank her for stepping forward to discuss it with me. Hopefully the below sections' content would not be needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Formal global ban block proposal

I propose that this person be effectively (not technically) globally blocked from all Wikimedia projects for a period of no less than 5 years.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Put the global bans policy in effect

I also propose, at least for the purposes of this incident, the ratification of at least part of the global bans policy, especially the core parts, including the definition of bans and the criteria.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jasper. I understand your urgency, but you do realize that the global bans policy states explicitly that you can't just go ask the Stewards for a ban? You need to hold an RFC here on Meta about it, and ask people involved from the wikis the person has been previously blocked on to participate. For pretty cut-and-dry cases like this, I would suggest avoiding the overhead of requesting a formal global ban (not to mention that the policy is still in proposal form). Thanks, and best regards. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked some questions on the talk page. One of my concerns has been resolved (and I suggest to be clearly worded on the policy re: "there's no option to lift a global ban locally") however one of my main concerns still remains and is that there's no formal threshold of support, neither indicative, that would allow us to determine when there's consensus and when there is not; specially on those eventual important requests for global bans. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I think Billinghurst's global block proposal is better.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Marco: do you mean you want a specific support threshold as a percent of participants? That sounds like turning the thing into a vote, which is extremely dangerous because big wikis like English Wikipedia will always outnumber smaller ones. Relying on Stewards to read the discussion and declare a consensus sounds safer to me. If it's not clear there is a consensus, then the it should just be closed that way and no ban enacted. This kind of thing should happen very rarely, so being conservative in our judgement about it is a good idea I think. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

global hide and blocking

Hello everybody,

Since my IPs were quite lot of time used by a spambot (creating self-redirects and nonsense pages, it hopelessly begins to be well-known). Could you just block all my accounts locally and delete the history of my contributions so that the spambot could not use my account to vandalize ? I just want to disappear completely not to be related with a spambot, until I find a mean to get rid of it and create a safe account. Thank you. Nebogipfel (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with at Steward requests/Global#Global unblock for User:Nebogipfelbillinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not what I was asking for. Could you just do that or is it impossible? Thank you. Nebogipfel (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
You have no evident relationship with a spambot (sulutil:Nebogipfel or luxo:Nebogipfel), and the statements elsewhere simply state that an underlying IP address you used in a dynamically allocated system aligned. As you are within your account, please feel free to update your password, and utilise a strong password. We generally do not block good accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you just delete the history of my contributions? This spambot (or another resembling one) once compromised an account I created and that looked good. I really want to disappear. Thank you. Nebogipfel (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
So a straight answer is, neither your account nor your edits will be deleted. If you want to disappear, stop using it. Bencmq (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)