Steward requests/Global/2009-05

Request for global (un)block

The following discussion is closed: IP block done, range block not yet
  • Open proxy. This IP adress has been e-mail bombing me password resets across many projects. I've blocked the IP on meta (log) and then Herbythyme (talk · contribs · CA) hardblocked it for a year. It's not the first time I've received mass password resets for this IP adress and I think a gblock would stop him. Thanks. —Dferg (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree with Dferg completely - a cross project pest (& traffic on CU list about it too I think). --Herby talk thyme 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a Google Web Accelerator proxy. GT5162 (我的对话页) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done for 3 months. --Erwin 11:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one IP of a range ( which is causing problems & is essentially a proxy range. We should consider placing a rangeblock, IMO.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If the range in question is causing problems I don't see the problem in placing a ~3 months rangeblock. Regards. —Dferg (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ditto :) --Herby talk thyme 17:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm, are there also good edits from that range? --Thogo (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
IP got blocked range not yet, currently there is no consensus if to gblock the whole range, if it continues and we get confirmations from cu's from other wikis that might change, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Luxo's shows only one block and a handful of edits across 3 wikis. I don't think a global block is needed at this point. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for global (un)lock and (un)hiding

Global lock request

Status:    Done

Please lock this sock accounts (belongs to mass sockpuppeteer: Colombianorgulloso (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log CentralAuth AllContribs checkuser)) which have been used for x-wiki vandalism and copyvios. Thanks, —Dferg (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

done, thanks for notifying us, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another lock request

Abusing multiple accounts (per CU evidence) and xwiki vandalism (the 3 are the same user), also Dinobot, which don't have SUL but also blocked for disruption and vandalism. Thank You. —Dferg (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  Done, thank you dferg--Nick1915 - all you want 19:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your time. Regards, —Dferg (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Global lock and hide request

Vandalism-only account and abusive username . Thank you, —Dferg (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Global lock for Pizzahutpanpizza

Status:    Done

Abusing multiple accounts xwiki (Bambifan101 = Iluvteletubbies = Pizzahutpanpizza) and xwiki page move vandalism [1], [2], [3]. Thank you, —Dferg (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  Done locked--Nick1915 - all you want 10:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Update per eswiki CU

Per checkuser results at es.wikipedia, I request a global lock for this accounts too:

Awaiting for checkuser information locally and on ca.wikipedia. Thanks, —Dferg (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Update per cawiki previous CU
Update per recent checkuser investigation @ cawiki

Lock-hide request

Very abusive username, vandal. Thank you, —Dferg (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done by Drini (talk contribs count logs page moves user rights block log email), —Dferg (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lock-hide request

Vandalism-only account, sockpuppet of banned user and abusive username. Thank you, —Dferg (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

done by Spacebirdy. —Dferg (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for global permissions

Global IP block exempt for One last pharaoh

The following discussion is closed: The English Wikipedia has their own process to, please see w:en:WP:IPBE

Hey, i was directed here by that page telling me that i have been globally blocked from wikimedia, yet i am not sure of that i have a global account! I am an English Wikipedia editor as User:One last pharaoh, and here is my problem in case i am in the right place, if not please tell me what to do else;

I think that i have been caught in a wide range blocking. I am only one of seven neighbors sharing one server. I have been a Wikipedian for over a year now, have been blocked once for 3RR -for fear of violating it, not because i actually did- and that's all. I have been working on my first article, Fahd armored personnel carrier which have been promoted to B-class status relatively fast, was mentioned in the did you know section in wikipedia's home page, and i was working on some stuff on it with a goal of promoting it to featured article status. I have also been editing other military vehicles articles, where some of these articles contained only one source, no sources and so on, and my edits really boosted their levels. I have been part of the editors discussion group that set the modern MBTs template. I have been one of the first four supporters for the Masry (Modern Egyptian) Wikipedia, and have had some edits on it, but i then switched my interest back to the older, and more organized English Wikipedia. My point is that i am not a vandal, and that i have been innocently caught in an open proxy blocking. One of the things i want to talk about is that the blocking was first set with out an expiration date at all by user Spellcaster, then for 3 weeks or so by another, then by another (and the only one who replied to my email) to expire in 2013!. Thanx in advance.

Why do you need an exemption from global blocks? You seem to be editing on enwiki, which can exempt you from blocks already. If it's local IP blocks which are preventing you from editing, you need to contact sysops of that wiki.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
WOW that was fast :D. The problem is tCommons:Requests for checkuser/Casehat i know almost no thing about these stuff. I mean, when u said that i am a sysop, i was like "I am ?" so I might be in need of more help, if you do not mind. I mean i need a link with some brief explanation, i have been blocked for IP address by four separate users in a matter of days, that i am not sure what to do. I am any one welling to help, please email me there. Thanx.
On English Wikipedia?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's okay with you.
English Wikipedia has their own processes - you can ask on w:en:WP:AN for block exemption.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanx! I have another question; what is the difference between IP unblocking and IP Block Exemption?

IP block exemption allows users to edit without interruption, when their usual IP would otherwise be blocked by a hard-block of his IP adress or range. IP unblock is just, unblocking the IP for all users. —Dferg (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Abigor

I would like to request Global IP block exempt because my mobile network (opera mini) is blocked as open proxy most of the time, and the other way to edit with my pda is TOR. When both options are blocked now, I can't edit with my pda anymore (Most of my edits are made on that thing.) I granted myself on all project where I am a admin IP block exempt, and asked for it on and Meta. I understand that the block is to prevent vandalism, but there is a lot of extra damage, like a wise man told me: Never use a big noisy weapon for a tiny and fast enemy. thanks, --Huib talk 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Not done - we have yet to gather consensus on this; please see Wikimedia Forum#Global IP Block Exempt Group.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for Chenzw

I'm requesting this on behalf of Chenzw as he cannot edit here due to the new TOR restrictions, that he has been blocked under. He has authorised me to do so here. Regards, BG7 10:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, he can edit on simple wiki, so he just needs a local block exemption for Metawiki, right? Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As he has Bureaucrat status, he granted himself an exemption on simple; he will still need a global block exemption (for all the other wikis). --Eptalon 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
e/c No, he needs a global IPBE because he cannot edit on any WMF wiki. He can edit on simple wiki because he assigned himself IPBE as he is an admin. Thought that said, a local one might help initially so he can comment here himself ;). Regards, BG7 14:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing what the approval process is for these, I would suggest holding off on approving any just yet. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: The tor block is no longer in effect. However, due to frequent problems with my ISP's (StarHub, Singapore) proxy servers, I will be regularly auto-blocked (and possibly tor-blocked again) in future. Chenzw 06:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  Not done - we have yet to gather consensus on this; please see Wikimedia Forum#Global IP Block Exempt Group.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for MelancholieBot

MelancholieBot operates on IP(s) being in a range that has been blocked on jawiki e.g. (they do not have the IP block exemption feature). The range for jawiki is a Server4You VPS one, considered as Open Proxy there and on enwiki. Many thanks, --Melancholie 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Comment there is no group like that right? Wikimedia_Forum#Global_IP_Block_Exempt_Group Huib talk 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
See --- Best regards, Melancholie 20:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

  1. I'm not sure we're ready to implement this at present without further discussion.
  2. This is meant for users who need to bypass global blocks - not local ones. If blocks on jawiki are a problem for MelancholieBot then they should either make them softblocks or get ipblock-exempt locally. Local ipblock-exempt is for when local blocks are a problem. Global ipblock-exempt is for when global blocks are a problem.

Please see bugs 18343 & 18337.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, softblocking ("anonymous only"?) doesn't make much sense for potential open proxies, I think, so there's definitely 18337 to be fixed first. Just thought that a global bot could get a global exemption ;-) --Melancholie 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment, I personally don't see a problem here, Melancholie is a trusted user, his bot is a global bot, I know him from de.wikt where he is admin and I can't remember anymore how often he was ready to help me out with technical problems on any projects I asked him for. IP block exempt is for trusted users that are innocently caught in a block that was set to protect the project against vandalism of other users, imho that is the case here too. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding softblocks on open proxies: Yes it does make sense. Regarding Spacebirdy's comments: It's not a question of whether the user is trusted (certainly he is). Nevertheless, it is a local issue, not a global one. It is not our job to ensure that the blocks placed by local sysops don't have collateral damage - it is their job. There is no shortage of methods for them to place blocks in a more responsible manner. Until this is hashed out, I would not want to see this done.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
@softblock/sense: Spammers/vandals could create many accounts from an unblocked IP then first, using the account for spam/vandalism purposes then afterwards using their open proxy (a server). So, not sure whether communities are happy with "Block anonymous users only"+"Prevent account creation" only (some will do, though). I think I will wait for bug 18337 for the first (seems to become necessary for TorBlock anyway ;-). --- Best regards, Melancholie 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: Were there a consensus from to allow it, could a global group ("jawp.ipbe") with a wikiset of jawp only be created to grant this? It'd likely be an interim measure until the community approved a local IPBE right. But... thoughts? Kylu 05:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
That sounds backwards -- jawp could create a local ipblock exempt group and their bureaucrats could add that flag to this account. -- sj | help translate |+
  • I   Oppose to grant global block exemption. I trust him, but when his bot is malfunctioning seriously, we can't block the bot globally.--Kwj2772 () 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a missunderstanding IP block exemption has nothing to do with blocking the user, if his bot is not working of course it can be blocked also globally locked, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Birdy and Mike that the bot operator is trusted. I further don't see a reason to oppose this request. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 20:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ditto mav, and I suspect this applies to both bots equally. Additionally, we should make it a point to have an explanatory page here describing "special" groups we create, including clarifications of possible misunderstandings (such as above), and the conditions for granting and retaining such rights. Kylu 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe the point is that what Melancholie is asking for is not currently provided by membership in this group, and that the desired effect (being immune to local IP blocks) would require a new group to be created, or would require the current group's scope to expand and exempt named accounts from local blocks as well. The former idea is being discussed on the Forum, the latter hasn't been directly addressed, but MBisanz and others implicitly suggest it's a bad idea. -- sj | help translate |+ 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing what the approval process is for these, I would suggest holding off on approving any just yet. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Not done - we have yet to gather consensus on this; please see Wikimedia Forum#Global IP Block Exempt Group.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Global IP block exempt for WikimediaNotifier

The WikimediaNotifier operates on IP(s) being in ranges that have been blocked on enwiki and others like jawiki e.g. (they do not have the IP block exemption feature). The ranges are Strato and Server4You ones, both considered as Open Proxy ranges. Many thanks, --Melancholie 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now, per [4].  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Re the previous explanation, perhaps we need a cleaner way to associate specific unfilled requests (such as this one) with open bugs to help prioritize patches. -- sj | help translate |+

We are discussing what the approval process is for these, I would suggest holding off on approving any just yet. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Not done - we have yet to gather consensus on this; please see Wikimedia Forum#Global IP Block Exempt Group.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Global rollback for Kanjy

I would like this permission for SWMT activities. I am a Sysop/Bureaucrat at some Japanese wikis (jawiki, jawikt, etc.), and a CheckUser at jawiki. My primary interest is to deal with cross-wiki vandalism in Japanese language especially at small wikis, most of which are from blocked users of Japanese wikis. However, I find so many vandal edits in various languages and reverted some of them. I hope I have not made many mistakes in reversion. I think I am familiar with the standard rollback tool and I often use "bot" and/or "summary" options where I have sysop access. Thank you. --Kanjy 06:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  •   Support, Kanjy is a long time member of SWMT, watching small wikis also via the channel, his activity is not extremly high, but KMHO it is enough for global rollback, I trust this user & he is very kind and mild to small projects, thanks for helping, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support per spacebirdy--Nick1915 - all you want 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I too would prefer to see higher activity levels, but giving Kanjy global rollback will still benefit the projects.   Support  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

done, per consensus, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Thanks!, everyone! --Kanjy 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Global rollback for Mercy

Hello, I'd like to request the global rollback rights for vandal-fighting purposes. I'm a sysop on the Czech Wikipedia (since 2007) and the Czech Wikiversity and a rollbacker on several projects (en.wp, commons, simple.wp). I've been an active member of SWMT since the beginning of March and I'm regularly patrolling both the #cvn-sw and #cvn-sw-spam channels and also the recent changes channels of the Czech, Slovak and Simple English Wikipedias. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you! Best regards, -- Mercy (|) 16:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  •   Support, not new to SWMT, with crosswiki countervandalism/spam activity, also warns users, which is good, thanks for helping, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Seen Mercy on Simple WP doing excellent work vandal-fighting. Majorly talk 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • yes - an active cross-wiki spam/vandal fighter. He did good works in reverting/warning spammers, also at jawiki. Thank you! --Kanjy 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Majorly. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, but please do not use it when you revert vandalism which was made by an insulting username as you did on als:wp. I think about oversighting it. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I'll bear that in mind next time. -- Mercy (|) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is something that happens quite often, even to administrators who should also be more thoughtful, please see bugzilla:18526, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Mercy (|) 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Global rollback for David0811

The following discussion is closed.

I think that global rollback could be usefull for me, sometimes I had troubles reverting, because i must write the text on the captcha, i think also that the global rollbacker flag could be helpfull reverting fast vandals, i'm currently rollbacker on eswiki and enwiki, you can also see my cross-activity here.Cheers David0811 18:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes I think he will do a good work with this tool. He is a good cross-wiki vandalism fighter. I saw him on simple, where he do a good work. Barras 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse; I've seen him around, and he does an excellent job. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Endorse, he is a hard worker on es.wikipedia and he became active on SWMT too. Thanks for helping. —Dferg (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) concerns here makes me abstain for now. —Dferg (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • He is trusted and does work hard and good which is much appreciated, but I only see SWMT activity in the past 5 weeks. As long as we don't have an automatical rule of removal due to inactivity, I think a couple of months (3-ish) of SWMT activity should be mandatory to get global rb. So I abstain for now. --Thogo (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   sorry, I appreciate the help and work he is doing, but IMHO it is too soonish for global rollback, I have the feeling he is still a bit unexperienced what to revert and what is urgent and what not, whom to trust etc., please note that we are talking also about wikis where he does not know the language, please continue the good work and re-request in some months, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I   agree with Spacebirdy here. It is too soon, and I think David still needs to learn better judgment about what it urgent/important and what is not etc. I appreciate his efforts, but this is too soon, and there is still room for learning before I would support him having this tool. Please continue to help, and learn from others doing similar work, and in some months I would be more inclined to support a new request.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Marked as not done. Please keep the above comments in mind, and ask again in some months.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)