Steward requests/Global: Difference between revisions
QuentinvBot (talk | contribs) m 8 requests archived |
|||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:It's been over three weeks now. Is any real "progress" actually being made on this, or is the "In progress" stamp at the top merely a euphemism for "Screw you, Thekohser"? - [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:80BE:649:73A2:181F|2001:558:1400:10:80BE:649:73A2:181F]] 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
:It's been over three weeks now. Is any real "progress" actually being made on this, or is the "In progress" stamp at the top merely a euphemism for "Screw you, Thekohser"? - [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:80BE:649:73A2:181F|2001:558:1400:10:80BE:649:73A2:181F]] 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Perhaps most of the stewards are "involved" in the situation, or are hesitant to get involved in this complex issue. But it would be nice to have some more steward input here. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 11:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC) |
::Perhaps most of the stewards are "involved" in the situation, or are hesitant to get involved in this complex issue. But it would be nice to have some more steward input here. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 11:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::We're getting awfully close now to a month without any action or meaningful discussion why there has been no visible steward action. One could be forgiven if they began to form an opinion that Thekohser ought to be "in the right" if he just created a sockpuppet account and established a new, pseudonymous identity on each of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, since the process of clear adjudication has clearly failed him. - [[Special:Contributions/2001:558:1400:10:71F1:7547:9E08:43B5|2001:558:1400:10:71F1:7547:9E08:43B5]] 17:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Global lock for spambots === |
=== Global lock for spambots === |
Revision as of 17:41, 13 June 2013
- For global IP block requests, read the guideline and make a request below. Indicate why a global block is necessary and for how long.
- For account lock requests, read the guideline and post under Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding.
- For local requests here on Meta, see Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat
Cross-wiki requests |
---|
Meta-Wiki requests |
Requests for global (un)block
![]() |
<translate>
Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
|
Global unblock for 2001:1af8::/32 (SixXS)
- 2001:1af8:fe00:3d7::2 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye
This IPv6 range belongs to the SixXS ISP, which provides fixed IP addresses and tunnels after registration, and hence does not qualify by the definition of open proxy. Individual hosts can be reported via the abuse page. Please remove the default block on the range and use individual /64 blocks where appropriate. - Combusterf (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- The /32 is allocated to a webhost, LeaseWeb, which typically has open proxies, and has been found to contain a few. I would suggest exempting the prefixes specified at [1], but a steward would then have to make 8 blocks in place of this single block for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Global unblock for 117.18.231.50
- 117.18.231.50 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye
This user ip blocked by one steward but I am totally confused and astonished as i just created account. I visited few features of Wikipedia and few options like rules,minor editing like grammar,comma etc. I read talk etc. after that i have edited one test page and previewed but not posted and finally exit from Wikipedia. I know i have no contribution on wiki,i didnt made abuse or harmful edit on wiki or even i am not trying to make any non-sense work. i want to contribute in future like others. but today I found " Editing from your IP address (117.18.231.50) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 09:38, 31 May 2014 by Quentinv57 " if any thing occurred, it is totally unknown to me.please unblock IP 117.18.231.50. --user:117.18.231.50 19:22, June 1,2013(UTC) (uncorrectly signed comment by Hzakir94 Vogone talk 13:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC))
- The use appears to be able to edit now. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Global unblock for 166.78.181.17
- 166.78.181.17 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye
I'd like to get this IP unblocked. I went to edit a page and was told I could not because a different IP address (166.78.238.94) is an open proxy. My IP address (noted above) comes from my rackspace server. The other IP address in question might also be a rackspace server, but it's unclear why that box being an open proxy should prevent me from being able to edit pages. Thanks. --Douglaswyatt (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding
![]() |
Note that global blocking currently only applies to IPs, due to a technical limitation. If you wish to request a named account for global [un]locking, please request a global [un]lock here instead. Be sure to follow the instructions below:
Please describe abusive activity of an account before reporting them here. Since stewards are often not active at projects the reported accounts are, things that seem obvious to you may not be equally obvious to the reviewing steward.
|
Global unlock for Thekohser
- Thekohser (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- My account was globally locked in early 2010 after private discussions between Jimbo Wales and Mike.lifeguard. They were asked numerous times to disclose the rationale for a global lock, but none was provided, though it seemed obvious to me that the main reason was because Wales didn't approve of quotations attributed to him that I was placing on Wikiquote. Eventually, several Wikimedia communities (German Wikipedia, English Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiversity, and Wikimedia Commons) determined that the global block was improper, as it didn't reflect my good standing in each of those other projects. So, my account was renamed by a steward or a bureaucrat (I think it was Pathoschild), and then named back again on each project, so that the account would become uncoupled from the out-of-process "global lock". What I am asking for is either a similar work-around to restore my editing privileges on the projects where I have been participating dutifully for over three years, or an actual "community rendered" vote on whether my account should be placed under global lock, based on the three-year-old concerns of two admins who acted privately (without community discussion) to effect the lock. -- 2001:558:1400:10:811F:A519:E80:6495 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC) (as, Thekohser, since I cannot log in with my account.)
- Possible helpful links. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
This might help (no comment from me on this case, just a timeline clarifying the comments above. I recuse myself from any action as I was peripherally involved in this back in 2010 QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)):
- 25 March 2010 blocked by Jimbo at Meta for one year (Cross-wiki issues: Globally banned user)
- 3 May 2010 account locked by Magister Mathematicae based on a discussion on Jimbo's talk page
- 5 May 2010 account unlocked by Pathoschild who then applied local blocks to all projects where Thekohser was active (current block list available here)
- 30 May 2010 account locked by mike.lifeguard (comment per discussion)
- After 30 May 2010 various projects circumvent the global lock by renaming Thekohser to unmerge the local accounts from the locked global account.
- dewiki - unblocked but not renamed, account is still impacted by the global lock
- enwikibooks renamed to unmerge the account
- enwikinews renamed to unmerge the account
- enwikisource unblocked but not unmerged
- enwikiversity renamed to unmerge
- rowiki unblocked but not unmerged
- Commons unblocked, reblocked, unblocked, etc. Currently blocked
I may have made some mistakes here as I was working through it quickly - feel free to adjust the data if it is wrong QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Note - I am not a friend of Thekohser, and I have a long documented negative interaction with him on another Wiki (Wikiversity). I enforced his global ban there, and I took actions to prohibit him from editing the Wiki. That being said, I have never thought that his lock was done properly. When I upheld it against him there, I did so to uphold the spirit of the rules and to defend the system. I would have no problem with him being globally unlocked. I do have a problem with individuals circumventing the global lock on a local level through breaking the SUL. So I would support an unlock and, if he shows that he merits such an action in the future, he can then be put up for a global ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The user is in good standing at enWS for their editing, though not always renowned for good communications, or leaving other wikis baggage at the door, but is not unique in that regard; and good editing and transcription is the skill set that enWS is looking for. The 'global ban' at that time was problematic for the enWS community in the nature of its imposition and the lack of communication, and not a circumstance that I would like to see repeated. It is my opinion that summary imposition of a global lock of an editor of good-/long-standing is something that should be avoided without a broader community consultation. Personally, I would prefer that the global lock be repealed, and if the global community does not want the editor editing they have a means to undertake to resolve such matters and one that the stewards can enforce following due process. I would ask the appellant to try to refrain from the wild accusations, stick to the facts of what they want and why. Their opinions on other people's opinions, let alone these people's actions, are seemingly irrelevant to the matter in hand. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Supplementary. I do not favour the approach of trying to disconnect accounts from the global SUL, from my understanding of the proposed unification process it simply becomes both problematic and unworkable, such why I favour the unlocking of the account. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I'm wondering how much legit and useful is this un(b)lock(s). --Vituzzu (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The appellant seems to think it legitimate and usefu. Mine is just an opinion for whomever evaluates. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- On Wikiversity, I was out of process desysopped because I defended the unlock, and the Stewards all seemed to side with that at the time and refused to reblock him, restore my adminship, etc. So it is so legit that the Stewards at the time allowed major policy violations to happen to uphold it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is not about you, this is someone's appeal against a lock. This is meant to be forward looking, not rehashing history, that just informs the review. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your incivility is uncalled for. The Stewards have unanimously ruled previous on the breaking of the lock, and deemed that the abuse of power by Wikiversity admin in upholding the lock break was to be acceptable. You obviously did not bother to even look at the incident that I discussed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is not about you, this is someone's appeal against a lock. This is meant to be forward looking, not rehashing history, that just informs the review. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I'm wondering how much legit and useful is this un(b)lock(s). --Vituzzu (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Supplementary. I do not favour the approach of trying to disconnect accounts from the global SUL, from my understanding of the proposed unification process it simply becomes both problematic and unworkable, such why I favour the unlocking of the account. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the Global bans policy should be followed moving forward. Thekohser was active on 19 projects. None of 19 communities were informed and asked to weigh in on a global ban --darklama 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I like analogies, so my take is like this: imagine a Wild West town where the sheriff was always the one to decide who got thrown in jail and for how long. It was a small town and it was easy to do things informally. Then the town builds up a little, and maybe some new people say "hey, it doesn't seem right that 1 guy should make those decisions just because he has always been the ones to make those decisions. The sheriff agrees, and steps back into more of an advisory/figurehead kind of role, while the townspeople take greater control over the jailing and the jail time. The thing is, there's a cramped, dusty cell down at the end that everyone forgot about, and in it is a guy who was locked up by "the old rules". IMO the townspeople should let him out, as times have changed and regimes have changed. So in practical wiki terms terms, the global ban should be rescinded, as well as any local ban based solely on the global, i.e. obviously the en.wiki ban would remain in place. After that, anyone is free to propose a new global ban if they feel it is warranted, but one that can be discussed under current community norms. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that Thekohser is Otis? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been about 8 days now. How is the "in progress" effort coming along? - 2001:558:1400:10:5C9B:9086:1EDB:60F 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Two full weeks now. Still "in progress". - 2001:558:1400:10:F5A3:94A7:8E14:AC4C 15:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe that issues involving Thekohser can be handled by each individual wiki community. I don't see any reason for a global lock. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's been over three weeks now. Is any real "progress" actually being made on this, or is the "In progress" stamp at the top merely a euphemism for "Screw you, Thekohser"? - 2001:558:1400:10:80BE:649:73A2:181F 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps most of the stewards are "involved" in the situation, or are hesitant to get involved in this complex issue. But it would be nice to have some more steward input here. This, that and the other (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- We're getting awfully close now to a month without any action or meaningful discussion why there has been no visible steward action. One could be forgiven if they began to form an opinion that Thekohser ought to be "in the right" if he just created a sockpuppet account and established a new, pseudonymous identity on each of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, since the process of clear adjudication has clearly failed him. - 2001:558:1400:10:71F1:7547:9E08:43B5 17:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps most of the stewards are "involved" in the situation, or are hesitant to get involved in this complex issue. But it would be nice to have some more steward input here. This, that and the other (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for spambots
- Soulmate3 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- AnalisaCa (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- SandyMcgo (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- L922sa077 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- JQEJess (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- VickiTabo (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- LutherMoh (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Debbie43U (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Spambots. --Ignacio (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for spambots
- DomenicX4 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- OlgaNgd (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Angeles79 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- SheritaBu (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- ShanonMow (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- ElvisSell (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- VirgieTil (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- LeeBunch (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- JosephEng (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Spambots. --Ignacio (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Done Ruslik (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for LeanneHic
- LeanneHic (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Spambot. Érico Wouters msg 04:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Done Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for spambots
- AngeliaSm (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- APQChloe (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- PaulineXA (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Spambots. --Glaisher (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Done Ruslik (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for TerrenceD
- TerrenceD (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Spambot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Not done as it's technically impossible (no SUL). Trijnsteltalk 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global unlock for Mr.long1528
- Mr.long1528 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
This account was locked mistakenly due to similarities with previous spambots. The account is part of of a class project, and the account's authenticity has been verified by the course instructor. --Chenzw (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Unlocked by Matanya. Trijnsteltalk 08:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for spam-only accounts
- Lake7mist (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- CandaceWy (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- LaunaSlo (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Spam accounts. Thanks --Glaisher (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Done and thanks for the help! Trijnsteltalk 08:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for spambots
- MalcolmOq (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- LizaLumpk (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Spambots. Defender (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for LTA:ISECHIKA(いせちか)for Japanese Wikipedia 20130613
Please lock there accounts.Vandalism of Japanese Wikipedia(discuss・reference 1・reference 2・reference 3)."name hidden" are private name accounts. Please remove from lists. --Lanwi1(Talk) 19:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Done --MF-W 19:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for Sock accts of Diogotome
- DanielTom (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Daniel Tomé (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Alternate accts of globally locked acct. See en.wiki SPI. Not sure if there are any other socks. The user has been abusing email, etc - see [2]. INeverCry 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would say it's not possible to lock the first account while he edits unhindered on a project where he has over 4000 edits. --MF-W 20:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please lock the other sock, which was blocked on one site with summary "checkuserblock-account"? -- Cirt (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for Alorkabhi
- Kogoya (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Per w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alorkalabahi. --Rschen7754 20:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Global lock for spambots
- KristinBD (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Elliot74G (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- VickieDev (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- PatQZD (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- JessVicke (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Ericka91F (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- ArnoldoKe (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
- JessVicke (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)
Spambots. --Ignacio (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Requests for global permissions
- This section has been moved to Steward requests/Global permissions.
See also
- User groups — Information on user groups
General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map
Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help
Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation