User talk:DerHexer

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives of this user talk page: archive 1 (2007-2012) • archive 2 (2012-2016).

Merchandise Giveaway[edit]

Hey DerHexer,

I am trying to clear out the backlog from the merchandise giveaway scheme and I was wondering whether you had been contacted at all by anyone from the WMF in the last year about it? Let me know. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please find my mail. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Emergency de-GS[edit]

Hello DerHexer!
You recently removed Liliana-60's GS rights, though I'm unable to find any abusive GS actions with the crossactivity tool. Would you please clarify this/document the GS tool abuse somewhere? Thanks, --Vogone (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There was no abuse of GS rights at all, the de-GS action was due to a local dewiki issue. -- Liliana 14:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
So why have the rights been removed then? GS requires preceding abuse or a vote of no confidence respectively. --Vogone (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Because "dewiki admins said so", apparently. I think it's an abuse of steward rights but that's just me. -- Liliana 14:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
They also want to request global lock for me, lol -- Liliana 14:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Global sysops: "Global sysops are highly trusted users" says it all. --Stryn (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Stryn: Of course it says so, but I don't see anywhere anything indicating why this user is no longer trusted. There likely is a reason why DerHexer performed this action and assumes - even without the normally required vote of no confidence - that the required trust of the community is no longer there, but it is intransparent and I cannot see a justification anywhere linked, not even in the log. --Vogone (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Provided you can read German, see here. --Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I still see no reason why a strictly local dispute should lead to any global consequences, be it a global lock (as proposed on that page) or the loss of GS rights. -- Liliana 15:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
You just went nuts in an impossible way and can have consequences, both onwiki and in real life. There was and still is much chance that you take it to other wikis as you already did with your message on commonswiki. Since it would be difficult to monitor 700 wikis, an emergency global de-sysop was the easiest solution in this case to protect our projects from getting harmed by you, acting irrationally at the moment. It is backed up by stewards as well as the WMF. It's not an irreversible action since it was an emergency solution but the best to be chosen (and a vote can prove if you were still trusted among the global community). But in the end, honestly, if I were you I would feel so much ashamed of what you just did that I would leave the projects, right now, afraid of what legal consequences I had to face. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you trying to threaten me as well? That's irresponsible of a steward. And in any case, you should have known that it was User:Nightflyer who brought the discussion to Commons and not me, so your accusations are wrong in every way. -- Liliana 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

<quetsch, leider nur in Deutsch, vielleicht übersetzt es jemand, falls notwendig> Nebelkerze: Mein erster Kontakt mit Liliana vor über einem Monat auf commons hatte ganz andere Gründe. Ein Löschantrag auf von mir hochgeladene Scans. Dieser Löschantrag war eine Rache für etwas, was ich in meiner Beitragsliste nicht mehr finden kann. Oversightet?

Der heutige Ärger begann hiermit. Ich zeigte eine Auffälligkeit zwischen zwei Benutzern auf [1] [2] und wollte einen Thread archivieren lassen. Daraufhin gab es einen Editwar mit nachfolgenden schweren Beleidigungen (Prostitution) gegen eine Benutzerin, der für eine dreitägige Sperre von Liliana sorgte.

Die Morddrohung gegen mich und meine Familie hat also mit dem Vorfall von vor über einem Monat nichts zu tun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightflyer (talk)

Just to be clear, DerHexer's decisions was discussed among stewards. That's, definitely, a sad and messy situation. But since GS's is based upon trust a precautionary removal is the wisest choice. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
It was a recommendation, no threat at all, with regards to your death threat (which definitely was one). You heavily abused the terms of use of these sites and therewith forfeited your former access to powerful tools. Whether or not a global ban, global lock, or complain to the police are required, is up to others, my task as a steward is to keep our global wikis safe. With such threat, I would have emergency removed rights of any user, be it steward or sysop. Since global sysops are a powerful group, acting on this place was the very first thing to be done. I informed all people involved to discuss further actions. Again, feel ashamed of what you wrote, regret what you did, and improve your behaviour with others, otherwise it will hardly be possible to work with you anywhere anyhow. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'll not talk to you anymore. You're no different from all the other dewiki admins, except you have shiny buttons to abuse and friends which you can tell wonderful lies to destroy my reputation at WMF. -- Liliana 19:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Please, please, return to the real world, re-read your text and reconsider what you just did. I'm shocked, truly shocked. I have never read such stuff before, and I read plenty of vandalism, threats, and abuse onwiki as you know very well. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
(confl.) I was astonished around one year ago from other edits made by this user and I was inclined to remove their advanced permission at that time. Today's problems cannot be ignored - since they heavily impact on the freedom pillars - and edits like the last one are neither advisable nor permitted on this project. I have blocked for one week, but this kind of problems usually have to be examined in depth. --M/ (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Túrelio for the link. --Vogone (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
A hint from a germanwiki-user: to threaten an user, his family or kids, is such a disgrace, that you only for this local dewiki issue should be banned generally. Sorry, but nobody needs you any longer in here. Thx for your work, it is time to go for Liliana-60. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
And it is idiotic, also, because Liliana even don't know who Nightflyer is, how old he/she/it is, or if he/she/it has family or not. This kinda rampage nobody needs. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
In any case DerHexer has done immediately what needed to be done in this situation so no need to criticise him but rather thank him to take responsibility for the situation. Everything else should be discussed only after some weeks cooling off of the situation.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
There has been a long time of transgression. Today I ask another Steward to have a look about this case. DerHexer handled it. Thanks for that. I hope, the emotions will cool down. --Itti (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not criticise, I asked for onwiki documentation of the issue in order to increase transparency. --Vogone (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
But you read, what she wrote? --Itti (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not, it has been hidden. :) --Vogone (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, that explains a lot :). Sorry, it was worse and preavious posts were not better. Sorry, but I think DerHexers handling was very reasonable. Regards --Itti (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The global de-sysop was the best solution imho. Liliana-60 is still admin at en.wiktionary. I think that flag schould be removed there as well (local de-sysop?). I am quite shocked what Liliana-60 is writing on de and commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Vogone, you should have a look here; unfortunely you cannot read the reason for it, but it was as heavy as the last edit on de. -jkbx- (an internetcafe + vacation sock of -jkb-) 13:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tools on Wikimedia are not rights, but privileges allowed to trustworthy people. It is proper to remove advanced access from people who abuse the trust. Furthermore, gross levels of abuse may indicate that a person should not be trusted anywhere, not just in the one sandbox in which the abuse occurred. Sometimes, we can split projects (when the reason for tool removal is project specific) other times we should not. From what I have seen, this is one where we should not "split" but the actions are severe enough that any trust has been abused. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The en.wiktionary discusses already this problem, so no need to perform a de-sysop againt the descision of the community there imo, so if they don't want a desysop, we should respect their decision. Greetings, Luke081515 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That Liliana aka Prince Kassad still held any sysop rights anywhere is the true mistake here. The user has been trolling de-WP for years with dramatic accounts of his life that were quite obviously untrue and repeatedly escalated into rants, insults and threats. That's unless you'd like to believe that Prince Kassad was actually a 14-year-old girl well experienced in Wiki-slang, Unicode and interlanguage Wiki coding when he started in started in 2006. Pull the other one...--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk)

That's still not a reason to override a local community. Maybe for a global desysop, but not for a local, if a community is big enough imo. @Gonzo.Lubitsch: She is now blocked at dewiki, so what is the problem? And if you don't trust her, there are person who know her in RL, so why don't ask them? Luke081515 20:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
A user making up false identities and stories who resorts to despicable insults and threats of violence cannot to be trusted to handle sysop rights responsibly. Since local communities have usually little insight in what was going on in other local wikis, mostly w/o the ability to even see deleted posts they are not in a good position to really judge and make a qualified decision in those cases where someone goes nuts outside their own domain.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think, that they are not in a position to make a qualified decision. They know, which content was deleted, from different persons. What you actually are doing: You try to export the conflict to other wikis, so you're not better, than Liliana, as she exported the conflict to commons. A global desysop is justifiable, because you can't monitor 900 wikis with small communitys. But you can let monitor a community its own wiki.
And another question: Why do you know what is good for the community there? As I can see, you don't habe contribs there, so why can you judge here? This was one point there too. To quote one user, as he said: "I would much prefer that the Germans not bring their quarrel here", so don't do that. Luke081515 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking for the en.wiktionary community, we would prefer to handle our discussion of the matter in-house. Thus far there is general consensus that what happens on de.wiktionary (or any de. Wikimedia project) is distinct from what happens on en.wiktionary. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • While the rights removal is clearly justified, more transparency (even a talk page notice) would have been preferable IMHO. --Rschen7754 01:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Now after almost two weeks full of off-topic comments on this page, I hope things have cooled down and I would like to call attention to my initial request here. It's been left unanswered. Thanks, --Vogone (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Vogone: What would you think where the best place for such documentation would be? Talk:Global sysops for example? Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    Seems to be custom to create an RFC subpage, at least policies for other, similar user rights require a report over there, which may also be commented by the community if desired. Thank you, --Vogone (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's better to write to the closed global sysop mailing list where it's easier to explain issues that cannot be discussed publicly due to the serious of these issues. The full community would only be able to comment with unsufficient information which cannot be published since they were removed with good reason. Nevertheless, I note on the talk page that the right was removed should be required. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    Doesn't make much sense to me since global sysops in this regard do not have any more access than any other user. And judging from above, it is possible to let the community comment, even if certain details are unknown. The English language Wiktionary community is also discussing this issue openly. But of course, it's up to you what you choose to be appropriate. --Vogone (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Archiving?[edit]

Hello DerHexer. Would you accept a friendly suggestion to archive your talk page? It's becoming quite large and I had some problems yesterday loading it due to transitory slow network speed. Users with slower internet connections might also have problems to load it as well. If you allow me an example too, some of us use ArchiverBot to do that awful job for us ;-) I hope that you don't consider bad this message. Cheers, —MarcoAurelio 15:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Loading your user talkpage on a smartphone can be painful as well. -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, finally did so. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:-)MarcoAurelio 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sister Projects Committee[edit]

@DerHexer: Good afternoon. The Sister Projects Committee is inactive, the oldest waiting project was proposed 10 years ago !

Where could I make a pool/concensus to change the way this comitee works ? Or can the administrator change that without (but I don't think) ? Thank you. Archi38 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to use the talk page or sent messages to the users on the list? In general, I doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation will easily allow new projects. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Blockade wegen "long term abuse"?[edit]

Hallo DerHexer, könntest Du mir bitte freundlicherweise mitteilen, warum Du mein Konto gesperrt hast. Ich bearbeite die Seite "Evangelische Stadtkirche Monschau", deren Pfarrer ich bin. Über eine kurze Nachricht würde ich mich freuen.

JPBentzin

Recurring long term abuse: http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?:title=Wikipedia%3APro%C5%9Bby_do_administrator%C3%B3w&type=revision&diff=45979987&oldid=45979983
Please intervene. 5.9.156.151 08:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I cannot find a log entry that I blocked the 83.6. range. Can you please quote the block message? Same with JPBentzin please. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Why wonder? He found new IP range and he vandalizes from it. Best would be to globally block it again according to Global_block_of_Orange_ranges_(2015).
Ich war gesperrt mit derselbem LTA Sperrkommunikat. Bitte gib mir Sperrexemptionrecht.
JPBentzin

auch ich bin betroffen und finde es eine Unverschämtheit und total undemokratisch aber das passiert wenn man bestimmten Leuten Befugnisse erteilt und diese damit nicht umgehen können

von mir kriegt wikipedia keinen cent mehr

Participate in the Inspire Campaign and help address harassment![edit]

NounProject Leaves.png

Through June, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas focusing on addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors. The 2015 Harassment Survey has shown evidence that harassment in various forms - name calling, threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation, among others - is pervasive. Available methods and systems to deal with harassment are also considered to be ineffective. These behaviors are clearly harmful, and in addition, many individuals who experience or witness harassment participate less in Wikimedia projects or stop contributing entirely.

Proposals in any language are welcome during the campaign - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign so that we can work together to develop ideas around this important and difficult issue. With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Opt-out instructions)

Werbelastige Benutzerseite[edit]

Hallo DerHexer, die Benutzerseite User:Chborusse wurde direk auf die DE Wikipedia-Benutzerseite verlinkt, sodass ich als Administrator der DE-Wikipedia die Seite nicht löschen kann. Der Inhalt verstösst mMg. gegen unsere Konventionen für Benutzerseiten, da Wikipedia kein Anbieter von kostenlosen Webseiten, die zur Eigendarstellung, Werbung, als Linkcontainer oder Publizierung von unenzyklopädischen Texten ist. Eine Ansprache des Benutzers blieb bisher erfolglos, sodass wir Hilfe eines Meta-Admin benötigen. Freundliche Grüße --Doc.Heintz (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Wiki-broom.svg

provisorische Lösung, Gruß -jkb- 23:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Der Trick ist aber echt gut. -jkb- 23:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Danke für die Zwischenlösung. Wir sollten gegen derartige "Tricks" ein Gegenmittel finden. MfG --Doc.Heintz (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm, die Lösung von -jkb- ist schon gut, sonst WM:RFH. Ich kann es aber mal ansprechen. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 09:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennoch noch einmal: nur ein Provisorium (auf en: überigens auch). In dem Moment, wo sich jemand findet und aus welchen Gründen auch mein Edit löscht (der Admin kennt sich nicht aus, per Userantrag...), und solange die Seite auf Meta noch existiert, sind wir da wo wir sind. Man muss solche Seiten hier auf Meta löschen, alternativ die Seiten auf den Wikis, die mit einem Edit (wie von mir) zuerst "außer Betrieb" gesetzt wurden schützen. (Ich hätte natürlich auch den Text auf der Seite hier entfernen können, ja aber :-) ...) Gruß -jkb- 13:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Auch ich meine, dass es so nur eine Zwischenlösung sein kann; bitte klären. --Doc.Heintz (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Wiki-broom.svg
Wie gesagt: Ich hab es nun auf die Agenda des Stewardmeetings morgen Nacht gesetzt. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hallo DerHexer, dann könntest du villeicht das hier / User:Mightyquinn84 gleich mit ansprechen. Grüße --Doc.Heintz (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Good Job zum Block der Drei-Nutzer[edit]

Ernsthaft, gehts noch ganz?

Ein bisschen mehr Kontext wäre hilfreich, um zu verstehen, worum es geht … Ich hab schon mehrere drei Nutzer gesperrt. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ich weiß nicht, was es bei den Drei-Benutzern genau war, aber der IP-Block wo ich drinnen bin war eben auch gesperrt. Es war der ganze 178.190/16-Block gesperrt (ungefähr 65 534 praktische IP-Adressen). Ich finde so großräumige Sperren etwas übertrieben ... Ich würde normalerweise nur ein /32 sperren (eine einzige IP-Adresse). --Thomas1311 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


auch ich bin betroffen und finde es eine Unverschämtheit und total undemokratisch aber das passiert wenn man bestimmten Leuten Befugnisse erteilt und diese damit nicht umgehen können

Announcing a new mailing list for Meta-Wiki administrators[edit]

Hello!

As a regular administrator on Meta-Wiki, you're allowed to subscribe to the recently created metawiki-admins mailing list. This is a closed mailing list for announcements, asking for help and discussion between Meta-Wiki administrators. If you wish to subscribe, please fill the form at this page and then contact Savh or MarcoAurelio via Special:EmailUser using your administrator account so they can verify the authenticity of your request and address. You'll find more information on the mailing list description page. Should you have any doubts or questions, feel free to contact any of us. We hope that this tool is useful for all.

Best regards,
-- MarcoAurelio and Savh 12:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Mailing list administrators for metawiki-admins mailing list.

Message sent to members of Meta:Administrators/Mass-message list. Please see there to subscribe or unsubscribe from further mass messages directed to the whole group of administrators.

No renaming between November 20 and November 27[edit]

Hi,

You’re getting this because you’re a steward or global renamer. The Community Tech team are working on cross-wiki watchlists. We need to add a couple of fields to the localuser table in centralauth database. In order to be able to do this, we’d need to run a script that will get in the way of renaming users. Our apologies – we realize this is getting in the way of your work.

We ask that you do not rename anyone between 00:00 November 20 (UTC) and 00:00 November 27 (UTC).

(UTC means that if you live in the Americas, it will be on the evening or afternoon of November 19 when the script starts running, and if you live in Oceania or eastern Asia, it can be closer midday on November 27 before we can be sure the script is no longer running.)

Phabricator task.

If there are any problems related to this, or you have any questions, please write me on my talk page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem with the account[edit]

Hi DerHexer,

I'm Ranko Nikolić, administrator and bureaucrat on Serbian Wikipedia.

I can't log into my account on Wikipedia due to problems with 2FA, my authentication device is broken. Do you like steward can reset the settings of my accounts or otherwise-enable access to the account? User Dungodung is on my talk page confirmed that I lost access to the account.

Best regards,

@Hoo man:DerHexer (Talk) 23:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We're handling this on Phabricator now. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Lost account recovery for someone I know from Wikimania?[edit]

I've got a curious case here. User:Aaa839, whom I've met at Wikimania last year, contacted me on Facebook to say he's lost the password to his Wikimedia account. But it seems that he hasn't attached an email address to his account... I wonder if it is at all recoverable? Would stewards help recover an account based on trust testimonies of other users? Deryck C. 14:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Deryck Chan, yes, they sometimes do. I can confirm that you are very trustable in such regards. User:Hoo man knows pretty well what are the next steps. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan: The next step would be to open a (private) phabricator ticket for this issue, so that we have a place to track what's going on and why we are doing these things. After all, this should not be taken lightly.
If you can't open a ticket on phabricator, you can also email me via Special:EmailUser/Hoo man and I'll open the ticket for you. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hoo man: I've created phab:T157671 and subscribed you. I'm not sure what you mean by private ticket but the documentation sounds like it can be set after one opens the ticket. Anyway I didn't post any private information on the ticket. Deryck C. 10:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fühle mich als Unbeteiligter durch grobschlächtige, pauschale IP-Bereichssperre brüskiert. (82.113.96.0/19)[edit]

Es ist mir klar, dass man die Wikipedia gegen Vandalismus schützen muss. - Aber wenn man vollkommen unschuldig eiskalt abgemeiert wird, nur weil man im mobilen Internetzugang zufällig eine IP aus einem pauschal "abgestraften" Bereich bekommt, ist das schon ziemlich mies!!! (Betr.: Bereich 82.113.96.0/19 bis 2017-03-02) - Diskutieren will ich das eigentlich gar nicht, sondern dem Verursacher nur mal mitteilen, dass das einen sauschlechten Eindruck macht. Weil ich jetzt eine andere IP zugeteilt bekam, die nicht betroffen ist, habe ich den Edit im Artikel doch noch machen können. Sie werden ja wohl nachsehen, worum es ging. (William Wilberforce Wirklich nur eine nützliche Kleinigkeit, die ich dort ergänzt habe.) Aber ich werde für die Wikipedia wohl nichts mehr beitragen. Mir ist das Arbeitsklima dann doch zu engstirnig und unfreundlich. - Mit freundlichen Grüßen --89.204.130.38 22:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Aufgrund von Vandalismus (also unsinnigen Bearbeitungen einzelner Benutzer) ist es manchmal notwendig, IP-Adressen den Schreibzugang auf Wikipedia zu sperren. Manchmal hilft aber auch das nicht und es muss eine gesamte IP-Range gesperrt werden. Dieses Mittel wird selten und meistens nur kurzzeitig eingesetzt, da dadurch nicht nur der Vandale gesperrt wird, sondern auch unbeteiligte und konstruktiv arbeitende Benutzer. In diesem Fall wurde die Range jedoch Hunderte Male missbräuchlich eingesetzt und musste längerfristig gesperrt werden.
Gern können wir jedoch ein Benutzerkonto mit einem Namen Ihrer Wahl anlegen, das von dieser Sperre nicht betroffen wäre. Ob der Wunschname noch verfügbar ist, kann auf Special:CentralAuth überprüft werden.
Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis, das Problem bekommen wir schon gelöst. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Verständnis hat dafür anscheinend niemand. IP-Sperren gegen Vandalismus sind unsinnig, wenn die Vandalen einfach VPNs, Proxies, gekaperter Rechner, und sonstige Tricks nutzen, um an den Sperren vorbeizukommen. Mit solchen IP-Range-Sperren werden meistens nur normale Menschen ausgesperrt und so der Sinn von Wikis untergraben. Wenn man zu solch drastischen Mitteln greifen muss, hat man i. d. R. ganz andere Problem. Aber einfach einen signifikanten Teil einer Bevölkerung auszusperren, ist sicherlich nicht der richtige Weg. Und die Solidarität anderer Teilnehmer sinkt dadurch ebenfalls stark. Kleine Frage (da ich nicht weiß, wie das intern funktioniert): Hast du alleine die Entscheidung getroffen so viele Leute zu sperren, oder führt ihr intern eine Abstimmung durch, bevor das umgesetzt wird? --37.120.53.62 22:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Das sind etliche Range-Sperren. Wieviele IP-Adressen sind derzeitig in dieser Art und Weise von dir (und von wem noch) gesperrt? -- 88.66.188.38 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Range-Sperre(n)[edit]

Falls du es noch nicht mitbekommen haben solltest und falls es dich interessieren sollte: heise-Meldung. DestinyFound (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Und hier: Wikipedia sperrt zehntausende Oesterreicher auf derstandard.at vom 21. März 2017 --Meine Beiträge (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hallo Martin, kannst du mal erläutern, in welcher Funktion du globale Sperrungen durchführen kannst und warum du bis zu 65.536 IP-Adressen, an anderer Stelle auch mal 8.192 oder so sperrst. Mit wem sprichst du das denn so ab?
Warum stehst du der Presse für Rückfragen nicht zur Verfügung? -- 88.66.188.38 16:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Siehe de:User:DerHexer. Ich bin derzeit schlicht nicht da, was die Presse auch weiß. Sie agiert nichtsdestotrotz und in Unwissenheit. Selten dämlich. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Martin,

ich möchte Dich ermuntern, etwas freundlicher mit derartigen Dingen umzugehen. Das Thema und seine tägliche Praxis kenne ich nicht, und möchte daher auch keine einzelnen Schritte ansprechen oder gar annmäkeln. Ich möchte aber anregen, dass solche Dinge zumindest besser kommuniziert werden, und dazu ermuntern, aufmerksam zu sein, wenn sowas in der Presse Echo findet. Vielleicht kann man, hier darauf angesprochen, auch etwas freundlicher oder geschickter reagieren. Vielleicht ist eine erläuternde de:WP:... - oder de:Hilfe:... - Seite, die in den Sperr-Logbüchern verlinkt wird, ein weiterführender Ansatz. Vielleicht existiert sowas auch schon, nur so schlecht auffindbar, dass ich es noch nicht gesehen habe.

--Blauer elephant (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hallo DerHexer, ich darf mich der Ermunterung anschließen nicht immer gleich alles zu sperren. Das ganze nimmt langsam Dimensionen an, die nicht mehr rational nachvollziehbar sind. --87.171.197.25 05:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Das hab ich mir auch gedacht, als ich wieder über 100 neue Konten in einer Range sperren musste. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Vermutlich tust Du eine wichtige Arbeit, gerade dadurch, dass Du Menschen und IPs sperrst. Das muss ich mir aber denken, denn Du kommunizierst das nicht. Das, was Du kommunizierst, wirkt mechanistisch, unnahbar und lakonisch, übrigens auch Deine dürre Bemerkung vom 27. Mai hier. Es wird dadurch nicht einfacher, auf die Idee zu kommen, dass Deine Arbeit einen Nutzen hat. --Blauer elephant (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Das Kind ist ja nun in den Brunnen gefallen. Ich versuche nun, operativer und kurzfristiger darauf zu reagieren, als mit langfristigen Sperren daran zu gehen, die ja wohl wissentlich leider auch einige Nachteile haben. An sehr vielen Stellen wurde ich zu dem Fall angesprochen und habe dies beantwortet, natürlich immer mit dem Hinweis auf Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Avoided und Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Avoided, Teil 2, welche schon durch ihre schiere Masse an Wahnsinn für sich sprechen sollten. Wie auch mehrfach geschrieben, wog ich das anhand der Anmeldungen ab, ob eine längere Rangesperre gerechtfertigt ist, so wie das bei den Stewards Usus ist. Am meisten ärgere ich mich dabei, dass leider Unschuldige unter dem Chaoten zu leiden haben. Mehr als ein Hinweis darauf, dass die Sperre nicht für angemeldete Personen gilt und wir gern Konten anlegen, kann ich technisch nicht machen. Die Beschwerden diesbezüglich gegenüber der Wikimedia Foundation, verhallen derzeit noch, auch wenn jetzt ein Team sich an solche Themen setzen soll. Es fehlen Sperroptionen, die bspw. nur die Kontenneuanlage unterbinden oder die auf bestimmte User-Agents beschränkt sind. Das würde ungewollte Sperren deutlich reduzieren. So bleibt im Interesse der Projekte wohl nur, die zeitliche Bindung durch den Chaoten immer jeweils nur kurzfristig zu stoppen und auf Langfristiges zu verzichten, da dies augenscheinlich zu doch deutlichen Klagen geführt hat. Das kann ich zumindest für mich sagen, Kollegen von mir fahren die genannten Prozeduren auch weiterhin. Halt in anderen Ländern und mit anderen Chaoten. Und in der Tat, leider sind wir Stewards oft nur in der Lage, den Problemen hinterherzulaufen und können weder präventiv gegen sie vorgehen, noch haben wir die Ressourcen so darüber zu informieren, dass es auch für alle nachvollziehbar ist – mw:Help:Range blocks und en:Wikipedia:Blocking policy kratzen ja nur diese Problematik. Eine gute Überblicksseite, warum manchmal radikale Sperren notwendig sind, ist ein Desiderat. Ich nehme das mal in die nächste Steward-Telefonkonferenz mit. Wäre zu wünschen, dass sich jemand Zeit dafür nähme und man dies dann auch verlinken könnte in den Sperrbegründungen, an denen wir ja schon gearbeitet haben, aber die leider wohl immer noch zu unklar sind. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo DerHexer, ich schließe mich der Frage von 88.66.188.38 (16:46, 23. März 2017) voll und ganz an. Wer oder was gibt Ihnen das Recht, Tausende von Nutzer weltweit auf Gutsherrenart von der Mitarbeit an Wikipedia auszuschließen? So etwas nennt man Sippenhaft! Wieviele Promille der betroffenen Nutzer sind tatsächlich Vandalen? Und welcher echte Vandale ließe sich mit so einer Sperre ernsthaft von seinem destruktiven Treiben abhalten? Ich bin wahrlich kein Spezialist in solchen Angelegenheiten, aber mir fallen auf Anhieb gleich mehrere Wege ein, wie ein Vandale trotz massenhafter IP-Sperren sein hässliches Werk ausführen kann. Wikipedia verfügt glücklicherweise über effektive Wege, böswillige Änderungen schnell zu erkennen und rückgängig zu machen - unter anderem auch durch die Mithilfe zahlloser anonymer Helfer, die Sie mit Ihrer komplett überzogenen Strafaktion aussperren. Das Einzige, was Sie auf diese Art und Weise mit Sicherheit bewirken, ist Frust - Frust all der Menschen, die konstruktiv, aber anonym an Wikipedia mitarbeiten wollen. Im Grunde unterstützen Sie damit sogar das Werk der Vandalen! Mehr noch - auf mich wirken Ihre Massenaussperrungen nicht anderes als Vandalismus. Sie strafen wahllos all die ehrlichen Nutzer/Editoren von Wikipedia ab, die anonym bleiben wollen. Vielleicht sollte man zur Abwechslung mal Ihren Nutzer-Account für ein paar Monate sperren? Denken Sie einfach mal darüber nach. MfG, -- 3x2x1 (talk) 17:38, 01 June 2017 (UTC)


auch ich bin betroffen und finde es eine Unverschämtheit und total undemokratisch aber das passiert wenn man bestimmten Leuten Befugnisse erteilt und diese damit nicht umgehen können

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar standard.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your interesting lightning talk at the Wikimedia Conference 2017. Ijon (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar although I did not finish it early. ;-) My slides are online now. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Martin, thank you very much for organization of such nice conference and especially for sightseen tour. It was made in very nice way. We could see the main places quickly and was provided with all the necessary and interesting information. Well done! Greetings from Ukraine, --Visem (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this kind feedback. I appreciate that you enjoyed it. I had a lot of fun, too! Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sperre[edit]

Ich bin mal wieder als IP gesperrt ;) 80.187.100.87, Flixbus Slowakei. Angemeldet kein Problem. Diese Flixbusse scheinen Vandalen magisch anzuziehen.... --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Danke für die Info! Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
yep das gleiche Problem siehe Deine Disk auf de:WP [3] Besten Gruß --Tom (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

auch ich bin betroffen und finde es eine Unverschämtheit und total undemokratisch aber das passiert wenn man bestimmten Leuten Befugnisse erteilt und diese damit nicht umgehen können

Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee/Call for candidates[edit]

Ich schwanke irgendwo zwischen ernsthaft und ironisch. Ironisch: wozu ist das FDC gut und warum sollte man es nicht für ein pseudo-demokratisches Feigenblatt halten? Für mich klingt das nach einer Wahl für einen Haufen Cheggas, die das von mir generierte Geld (= ich trage zum Inhalt der Wikipedia massiv bei) dann sinnlos verpulvern. Ein Committee zum bestenfalls Spaßhaben. Wo kann ich mich eigentlich für diese Frankfurter Nationalversammlung bewerben? --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Informationswiedergutmachung, w:de:Wikipedia:Funds Dissemination Committee ist leider schon etwas veraltet, enthält aber immer noch einige hilfreiche Informationen. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

auch ich bin betroffen und finde es eine Unverschämtheit und total undemokratisch aber das passiert wenn man bestimmten Leuten Befugnisse erteilt und diese damit nicht umgehen können

Von mir kriegt WIKIPEDIA keinen Cent mehr als Spende das ist mal klar

Change the protection of a MediaWiki page[edit]

Hi DerHexer,

I wanted to know if it was technically possible to unprotect this page for a group of users? After, I will make a request here. Thanks.--Ghybu (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ghybu: Not that I am aware of. The least powerful user group I know which can edit javascript pages are administrators. Temporary admin access can be requested on Meta:Requests for adminship however. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

We need 2017 version of Global block of Orange ranges (2015), since:

54.73.158.56 19:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

blocked already, but global announcement as above is needed. 176.10.223.245 19:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Entsperrung[edit]

Die betroffenen Ranges waren meiner Ansicht nach bis zum 29.07.2017 gesperrt und sind nun alle wieder entsperrt.

Ich hoffe dass es von Dauer sein wird.

Update regarding Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos[edit]

Hello,

I regret to inform you that the series of motivational and educational videos project, which had been planned introduce Wikipedia and some of its sister projects to new contributors, is being discontinued.

There are multiple factors that have led to this decision. The initial budget and time estimates were far too small for a project of this scale and complexity. Also, my simultaneous involvement in Cascadia Wikimedians User Group was problematic due to the shortage of human resources for the user group, which resulted in my spending far more time trying to help the user group than I had planned, so my time and attention were diverted from this video project to assisting the user group.

You can find more information in the final report for the grant.

I regret that this project did not fulfill the hopes that many of us had for it, and I hope that in the future someone with the necessary resources will choose to resume work on it or a similar project. If you are interested in working on this or a similar project then please contact the WMF grants team.

On a personal note, I am retiring from the Wikimedia community. Perhaps I will return someday.

Regards,

--Pine 23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Series director and screenwriter

Böses Foul im Beispielvideo: Man klettert nicht auf irgendwelche Kästen auf der Straße, um über einen Zaun zu knipsen. :-) Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails[edit]

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you have experience dealing with abusive sockpuppeting accounts and you work across many wikis. We think that your insights will help us build a better feature.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion and let us know how it would work best for you.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Looked at it. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)