Steward requests/Global/2008-09

Please block some open proxy or web anonymizer (e.g. Anonymouse - IP range: 85.195.119.22/30) so we can test interface localizations. --Tgr 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Tgr, please choose a single IP, I don't want to block a range even of an open proxy if it is not used for abuse. If You want to coordinate this better, maybe we can meet in IRC, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed this request, IP-range will not be blocked. Nothing furhter heard. Tgr, if You need to test something still contact me on my talk or in IRC, I am sure we can find a single IP for testing purposes, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please consider blocking IP 81.201.25.78 for a day or so to stop his cross wiki spamming of the URL gribanov.ru The link has already been inserted in at least 95 % of the Saint Petersburg articles cross wiki, then removed, and now the IP has started reinserting the link ([1]). See User:COIBot/XWiki/gribanov.ru.

--Jorunn 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

3 days. Thanks for reporting. --Thogo (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why could this not have been done using the blacklist? Granted there is lag time, but if that causes issues, a short block until it takes effect would be sufficient.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My reason for requesting blocking, after I already had requested blacklisting, was that I figured that it can take some time before one of the maybe ca 10 persons who are working with the blacklist sees the request, evaluetes it, and possibly blacklists the link. The link inserter and I had already been through the whole list of St. Petersburg articles once, I figured it was quite possible that the link would not be added to the blacklist until sometime the next day, and by that time the link could have been reinserted in 90+ articles.

I suppose what you wanted to know is why there is someone to global block an IP, but not anyone to blacklist a link? I don't know. Maybe the blacklist work has become so delicate and intricate that only the blacklist experts feel they should edit the blacklist? --Jorunn 00:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dicting

sockpuppet of w:zh:User:十字军大屠杀. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 07:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, why should the account be blocked? Because it being a sock of some other does not seem a valid reason to me, is he vandalizing cross wiki ? (Can't see that happening) Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 12:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

s/he posted insulting personal-views on some talk pages and did personal attacks over en.wiki and zh.wiki. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This does not look like it could not be handled by local admins, they can just block him if he attacks people, maybe they want to choose to block him with a time limit, what can not be done by locking, so I would say   Declined here, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am an Admin on en:wiki[2] and monitor new users daily; specifically, I monitor for usernames that breach local policy. Occasionally I see autocreated usernames that seem (if not obviously, through Google translation) to breach policy. Whilst I am aware of cultural differences, it would be useful to be able to block obviously disruptive and offensive usernames. I have issued about 935 blocks on en:wiki; only a handful have been successfully appealed. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am confused, why would You need global rollback for all this You are doing? Looking at Rodhullandemu, I respectfully say   no at the moment, feel free to get involved in cross-wiki-vandal/spam reverting and come back in a few months, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am even more confused. I asked about this on the Foundation mailing list and was directed here. My post was

> Tricky if they're on floating IPs; I've seen a few autocreations on en:wiki > that are offensive when you run them through Google translation, and > blocked > them there- but I think it's in the nature of SUL that these users will not > edit on every wiki, and to try and weed these accounts out is impractical. > If they are going to cause trouble on a non-native wiki, they will be > spotted soon enough. I am principally active on en:wiki but of course auto-created accounts appear there and should prima facie be blocked on all WMF wikis if they are obviously disruptive. No problem to me if you want to delay the inevitable. --Rodhullandemu 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback doesn't grant the ability to globally block accounts, nor lock&hide... it just gives you the rollback button. I think perhaps you're confusing the various permissions? Kylu 00:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec too)

What exactly has that got to do with "rollback"? If You wish to have some accounts locked, please request the accountnames in the section above, a steward will lock it then, (please don't forget to add a reason if it is not obvious), thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

•   Comment Questions: How do your username blocks apply to work cross-wiki? Can you provide examples of where you've done undo/revert actions on other projects, or have otherwise contributed to non-English projects? Kylu 00:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this request is misinformed. This is for global rollback, not global blocking. Global rollback tends to only be granted to people very active in cross wiki vandal fighting, and global blocks are for stewards only. Majorly ^talk 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To answer the previous question; the problem is that they don't. If I see an new user on en:wiki "Kill all Jews/Niggers/whatever", all I can do is block them on en:wiki. For all I know, there are smaller wikis where they can proceed until they are noticed. I suggest they should be stopped forthwith. However, if I've been badly advised on the mailing list, that is no fault of mine. I just wish to protect Wikipedia and its siblings from outrageousness. If I can't do that, someone else will have to do it. I have enough to do. --Rodhullandemu 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right: someone misunderstood what global rollback is and told you to request it. Actually, as long as you're dealing with vandals, blocking them on the home project is (at the moment) good enough to keep them off the others. We do appreciate the interest in helping globally, though! Thanks. :) Kylu 01:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add usernames You wish to have locked in the section above and it will be done, that takes no more time than entering the names in centralAuth btw. very unhandy interface ;) thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

what you are requesting for is a right thats only applicable to the stewards and that is global locking and hiding of accounts and global rollback is just the ability to rollback edits, just like on enwiki but globally and the permission you are requesting is not really available for everyone so though I do agree with you, I don't think you really need global rollback here, the Title blacklist does stop those type of bad usernames from being created on all wikis and the stewards always locks and hides those usernames from the global userlog within minutes of creation..--Cometstyles 01:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I've been misunderstood or badly advised. Not my problem. I only wanted to help, but if I can't, I've a ton of other stuff to do. Serves me right for trusting a mailing list. --Rodhullandemu 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You have been given a link with the correct section (namely the section: Request for global (un)lock and (un)hiding), now if You don't click it and go to another section and request something different and something that can't be done (namely giving You stewards rights), You don't have to be disapointed, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 01:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Global rollback isn't the status that Rodhullandemu wishes. I've encouraged him to consider the Steward elections later, and Spacebirdy agreed the request should be closed. Thanks. Kylu 01:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)