Steward requests/Global/2010-08
| Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in August 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion. |
Request for global (un)block
98.177.155.42
- History here [1] User talk:98.177.155.42
- Example of recent edit [2]
billinghurst sDrewth 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- No vandalism since previous block by Mercy. Added 31 hour gblock to cover until Monday. Kylu 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
89.148.158.32
- Long-time cross-wiki vandalism, nonsense and personal attacks on many projects, static ip not shared with other users (as checked by it.wiki's checkusers), using multiple accounts on it.wiki and it.wikibooks. --Vituzzu 12:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1 month Melos 12:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for 95.133.26.30
Can anyone help? Please assign a global block to IP 95.133.26.30, as he has been engaged in vandalizing and talkpage spamming across the Wikimedia projects. Example diffs: enWiki, simpleWiki, esWiki, viWiki, deWiki, daWiki, and frWiki. TeleComNasSprVen 17:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Done by Leinad [3] Kylu 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Global block for 85.26.164.190
Crosswiki linkspam. --Jafeluv 20:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked for 2 days.--Shanel 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Unblock for User:Yaroslav Blanter on ru.wv
I have been arbitrarily blocked on Russian Wikiversity [4] where I have zero edit cound (meaning I have never interacted with the local community). I realize that this may be not an appropriate place for the unblock request but would you please advise what should I do next?--Yaroslav Blanter 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is something stewards can deal with, but the block seems to be unacceptable. The blocking sysop should clarify his action. Maybe the local community should discuss to desysop him. -Barras 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as soon as I am blocked I am not in a position to discuss with the community. If I get unblocked I have no business to discuss, since I am not a ru.wv editor and I am not plan to become one any time soon. U just want to have my SUL clear (which is kind of normal for an arbitrator of a top-10 project I guess).--Yaroslav Blanter 23:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have a top 10 of projects, all projects are equal.Huib talk Abigor 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, top 10 in the number of articles. Does not matter.--Yaroslav Blanter 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done This page is for g-blocks, if you need to discuss local blocks, please send a e-mail to SergeyJ or open a RFC. Regards - @lestaty discuţie 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, top 10 in the number of articles. Does not matter.--Yaroslav Blanter 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Note - Unblocked locally by SergeyJ. Kylu 04:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Global block for user:218.186.8.230/16
im bad at all this html stuff so sorry. When i tried to edit for the first time ever, i found out im blocked. after that when i tried on my school mycousins house all the same global block. even talk pages cant be ascessed. Please i hate all this restricions. Thak You— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.8.230 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not done This IP has performed a large number of vulgar and abusive. Many of these edits have had to be removed from history due to content. At this time, there's really no valid reason to unblock the range: It's not you, necessarily, it's people in that range who have little respect for others. I'm sure you're a nice person, but unblocking the range will just let the abusers abuse again. Sorry. Kylu 04:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Global block for user:189.26.0.0/16 and user:189.27.0.0/16
Open proxy (see http://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/stalktoy/189.26.0.0/15) --minhhuy*= 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that there are 120,000 open proxies on those two range? (that is what /16 means I think). --Herby talk thyme 06:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- 131 072, actually, I suppose. --Nemo 07:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the accurate fig - I was being very approximate :) --Herby talk thyme 07:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I can see it's a widely known ISP in Brazil: the subnet seems to be assigned to dynamic IPs, there could be some open proxies but it's not a "range of open proxies". Imho globalblock is out of question. --Vituzzu 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the accurate fig - I was being very approximate :) --Herby talk thyme 07:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- 131 072, actually, I suppose. --Nemo 07:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done Much too wide of a range for a global block without ironclad evidence that they are all open proxies. -- Avi 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Global block for user:85.25.124.254, user:85.25.76.172
This network runs an open proxy web-service (some front-ends are listed on http://85.25.76.172/). As a proof, I'm making this post right from this proxy. -- 85.25.124.254 07:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- On the second thought, the proxies seem to be running on 85.25.124.254 and 85.25.76.172 only, so only these IPs should be blocked. -- 85.25.124.254 07:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done - As requested by block target. Kylu 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Global block for user:38.113.161.250
Open proxy. Blocked 7 times in this year in 5 wikimedia projects. --Beroesz 00:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done 1 yr. Kylu 00:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Global block for user:97.74.144.199
Open proxy service. Blocked for vandalism 4 times in the last few months in 3 wikimedia projects. --Beroesz 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done 6 mos. Kylu 14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for global (un)lock and (un)hiding
Global lock for Si Gam Acèh
Recently, this user has performed a string of actions which show an unwillingness to abide by Wikimedia policies and norms. The root cause of the issue is that certain projects (notably European language Wikipedias) host images of Muhammad. Si Gam Acèh apparently feels that he can single-handedly overturn the local policies and have these images deleted, and if not, he'll revoke permission to use his contributions.
- Requests for comment related:
- ace.wikipedia and Prophet Muhammad images
- Prophet Muhammad images around Wikimedia projects
- This issue resulted in the removal of his local sysop bit and a temporary block (since lifted)
- Blocked on German Wikipedia for vandalism[5]
- Same, Spanish Wikipedia[6]
- And French[7]
- Also English[8]. Block there was for 3RR, but the edits were the same.
- On Commons, marks multiple of his uploads as "copyright infringement" [9][10][11] etc... (Note the identical camera make in metadata)
- Also on Commons, refers to David Levy as a terrorist[12], and subsequently blocked for this activity.
While I can't blame him for trying to abide his religious beliefs, I think the proper reaction should have been to simply leave Wikimedia, since the projects did not agree with his views and attempts to enforce them upon the projects. As the abuse is ongoing, and he simply changes to a new target when blocked from another, I think it's logical to implement a lock on his global account to prevent further damage. Kylu 03:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's really copyright infringement. The identical camera is not a proof. I call David as terrorist, because he vandalized my user page and my license edit. And then he intimidated me. So you must warn him too. Of course I want to leave Wiimedia, but you must delete all my contributions before. -- Si Gam Acèh 05:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ain't gonna happen. And stop that "terrorist"-bullshit. You're stretching it. Seb az86556 06:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- These cross-wiki edits makes me wonder about his user intentions with Wikimedia [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also note that the "I have violated other's copyrights" claim arose only after I declined Si Gam Acèh's requests to delete all of the photographs that he's contributed (with the explanation that the free licensing is irrevocable). See commons:File talk:Meuligoe.JPG.
It's clear that Si Gam Acèh no longer has any intention of positively contributing to the Wikimedia projects (having vowed to "never stop attacking" Wikipedia until his demands are met, and now apparently pursuing legal action), so I support the proposed lock. —David Levy 07:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's fact. Those are not my own images and you must delete them. -- Si Gam Acèh 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would think most religions says that lying is a bad thing. DarkoNeko 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- en:Catch-22 here, I think: If we trust that the original claim was truthful, the infringement notice is a lie, so the user is untrustworthy. If the infringement notice is true then the original claim was a lie, and thus the user is untrustworthy. There's no way that I can think of that both claims can be true, but since the infringement notice was posted after attempting a sort of retribution against Wikimedia and could be seen to be "hurting" commons, I'd imagine the latter scenario is true. Kylu 14:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would think most religions says that lying is a bad thing. DarkoNeko 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Any user may have his or her religious beliefs, but he or she may not use that as an excuse to vandalize the various Wikipedia's (Note: I added his block on the English Wiki to the above list by Kylu). After several attempts to reason with the user, pointing out that each Wiki (Including ACE) may make its own policy regarding these images, nothing would indicate that Si accepts those policies. If we are now up to a level where the user tries to mark a Wiki for closure arguing that he represents a large group of people, while equally trying to delete images for copyright violations and attacking others editors who try to prevent it, i think we end up with a contributer who is a net negative. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- My gut-feeling says support, my brain has me somewhat concerned about producing another sock-knitting factory... nonetheless, all of the above arguments make sense. Seb az86556 17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose because he has stopped the demonstration and bloks are not needed [21] --Juhko 20:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did you notice that Commons block happened today? --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 20:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ignorance is no valid reason for (indef?) block. --Juhko 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- He said he quit the protest on the 24th. On the 29th and 30th, he continued his protest on Commons, including giving false information on the origin of the images he uploaded as well as referring to someone undoing this damage as a terrorist. Juhko, he did not quit, he's still going. We can't trust him to stop, anymore. That's why he's facing an account lock. Kylu 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Not done, as I'd like to give him one last opportunity. See my notice on his talk page. --Erwin 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't forget to delete all my contributions after you lock me. -- Si Gam Acèh 04:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment you are not being locked (see Erwin's note) so even the discussion isn't necessary. Unfortunately however we can't really delete all your edits even if the account was locked because there is a copyright problem. Your edits and anything you add needs to be sourced to YOU and if we delete your individual edits they get sourced to someone else. James (T C) 04:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whyso "author request" is valid delete reason? --Juhko 04:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Legally once you make the edits the license is irrevocable. It would be disruptive to remove all the edits from one person, and 'author requested' deletion of a perfectly good article (especially with multiple editors) usually won't be done. Prodego talk 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Aye, usually author request is only honored when they are the only contributers and the article or page itself isn't very necessary (for example unused images or draft pages etc). James (T C) 05:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Legally once you make the edits the license is irrevocable. It would be disruptive to remove all the edits from one person, and 'author requested' deletion of a perfectly good article (especially with multiple editors) usually won't be done. Prodego talk 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whyso "author request" is valid delete reason? --Juhko 04:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment you are not being locked (see Erwin's note) so even the discussion isn't necessary. Unfortunately however we can't really delete all your edits even if the account was locked because there is a copyright problem. Your edits and anything you add needs to be sourced to YOU and if we delete your individual edits they get sourced to someone else. James (T C) 04:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did I just understand that user asks to be locked? Seb az86556 05:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- See diff=2062999&oldid=2062815, specifically "We never think that a Wikimedia administrator holds a position of government. But we are involved here. So for us, there are only 2 choice. We make a change or we quit. -- Si Gam Acèh 09:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)" - (Combined diffs all by the same author.) Kylu 14:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Per the continuation of protests I will lock his account. See user page, RfC (both Meta), user page, comment, template (all English Wikipedia) and user page (incubator). --Erwin 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done. --Erwin 20:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also locked Muhammad Nabil Berri. --Erwin 21:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Good riddance. -- OlEnglish 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for CSRedRat
I don't know if a global lock is the appropriate remedy here. The contribution search suggests that this SUL user has gone on a spam linking spree across over 40 of our sites. Is there a way to globally block and delete/revert the spam, or notify local admins of the pattern? I blocked temporarily with autoblock at English Wikinews. --InfantGorilla 22:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I changed it to an indef local block at English Wikinews --InfantGorilla 15:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Locked. There's a few edits which were appropriate if true (listing it as a mediawiki-using site possibly), but it's clearly a promotional effort. Other stewards are free to reverse, review, etc... Kylu 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is true that the links were to a mediawiki-using site. I, personally, don't see the value of linking every site that uses the software, through promotional efforts. --InfantGorilla 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for Tyciol
Tyciol is banned/indef'd on most major wikis and even ED for trolling and/or inappropriate pushing of a certain disruptive agenda which is well known. Request a global lock. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- He has been for a few days actually, Rlevse. --Bsadowski1 10:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cool. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- [22] --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 10:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- He sent me an email regarding the lock, I requested (on his talkpage) permission to post it there as a response to the lock, so that it might be presented to the community for evaluation. Kylu 12:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock/unlock for Lauryn Ashby
User's own request at SRP. —I-20the highway 00:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the diff for this request. All accounts attached per CentralAuth. Kylu 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done then. Kylu 15:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock/unlock for abusive username
--Seb az86556 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- locked and hid Kylu 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock/hide for a name of an arrested suspect
This username is a name of an arrested suspect in Japan. At ja.wikiquote, this user posted a quote about the case of the suspect. Thank you. --Kanjy 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for abusive username
Username is intended to slander Kazuhiro Kokubo. Please lock and hide. --Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 03:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Shanel 07:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! :-D --Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for Jgjgfjgfjgfjtfg
Vandalism-only account. Jafeluv 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for abusive username
Username vandal. His purpose is intended to Tomomi Okazaki. Please lock and hide. --Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 12:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done. --Mercy 12:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for User:WhiplashInferno
Crosswiki abuse, sockpuppetry. --TeleComNasSprVen 16:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done. --dferg ☎ talk 16:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Global unlock for リアルサムライ
He stopped vandalism, and requested to allow talk edit. Please unlock this account. We want to consider unblocking/continue.--Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 14:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Done We have unlocked the account. local accounts are still in blocked state. Local communities can unblock at their will. --Jyothis 21:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for User:Qualities108 and User:HareKrishnaPortal
A bunch of POV-pushing socks/trolls got together and decided to make a bunch of articles to try and convert everybody. (Contributions [23] and [24]) After deciding that they weren't accepted at Wikipedia for creating unencyclopedic content, they went to commons to try out their activities and uploaded a few images. They may also be socks of this IP, which was globally blocked for cross-wiki spamming the same ideologies. Recommend locking their accounts before they infect everybody and after their one-week block expires. TeleComNasSprVen 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Done --Jyothis 21:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock/unlock for Violin567
Cross-wiki abuse and socking πr2 (t • c) 21:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Done --Jyothis 21:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note - all edits were on Meta, so I local blocked. Is a gblock appropriate with no xwiki edits? -- Avi 21:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock for User:Allme128
Crosswiki spamming the copyvioed content he uploaded onto Commons. Also blocked on enWiki for sockpuppetry. TeleComNasSprVen 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Done --Jyothis 09:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Global lock and hide
Cross-wiki vandalism on ptwikiquote and ptwikisource + insulting name --Quentinv57 19:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Was locked, now its hidden. --dferg ☎ talk 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)