Steward requests/Global/2009-06

Request for global (un)block

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

Lock & hide request

Offensive username, created to attack w:es:User:Nihilo. Thanks, —Dferg (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

done by Spacebirdy —Dferg (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Global lock for J.i.m.b.o Dennis Kavanaugh

Status:    Not done
I don't see any abuse from this account, also the account is only anyway, and no where else, and if they think it should be blocked they can do it or not it will only affect one wiki => local problem. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Global lock for 勉強大好き

Status:    Done

This is a cross-wiki vandal only account. He blanks pages, inserts nonsense (such as childish insulting words), and writes criminal declarations of his vandalism. This username (means "I love studying") is not problematic. Thank you. --Kanjy 16:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

done, thanks for reporting, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Global lock/hide for John McCain the Terrorist

Unacceptable username 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done --Mardetanha talk 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple global lock/hide

All are unacceptable usernames. One of them is an attack username 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 12:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive usernames

Please lockhide this accounts. His names contains abusive language in Spanish. Thank you, —Dferg (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Already blocked on eswiki - I don't think a global L+H is really needed here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Global lock/hide for My password is pie and doodoo

Unacceptable username 17:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Global lock/hide for ばかやろう

This is a cross-wiki vandal only account, whose edit pattern is similar to 勉強大好き. The username simply means a "fool". Thanks. --Kanjy 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done Laaknor 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for global permissions

Global rollback for Fr33kman

I am a user who is dedicated to smaller wikis. I am an admin at Simple English Wikipedia and a rollbacker on enWP. I am a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team. I have a very good understanding of the need for and the use of rollback. During my time using rollback I have only ever had a single contentious use and that was decided to have been a correct use of the tool. I only ever use rollback for clear cases of blatant vandalism and always use undo if it is not clear and I wish to revert an edit. I have noticed that on quite a few small wikis vandalism can go unreverted for quite some time. Even on a larger small wiki such as my home wiki, seWP, vandalism can go unreverted. Whilst it is, of course, possible to simply undo a bad edit; rollback provides a better and cleaner method of doing so. I'm requesting global rollback because I believe I am a trusted and respected editor who has always shown that he only has the WMF's best interests at heart. Further, I have never been involved in an edit war. My SUL is active on 63 project sites which shows that I wander all over the WMF project space. Thank you! fr33kman t - c 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Fr33kman has 25-40 edits to projects that SWMT traditionally considers small wikis, excluding metawiki. I was just wondering, what is the general edit count/activity level that stewards look for before deciding to grant global rollback? NuclearWarfare 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    More than that. Looking at the distribution and nature of edits, I will say   strong no.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no fixed numbers. And I must confess that I've seen that name here and now for the first time ever (at least afair)... So this is obviously a   not yet due to lack of experience in SWMT matters. Be active in a good way for two or three months on SWMT and things might be different. --თოგო (D) 00:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  •   No because the edits on other wikis where he is active are either thanks to welcomes or interwikilinks and I can't see global vandalism/spam reverting from him. Therefore please reapply in some months if You worked in this field, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please use the undo button a bit more on small wikis to prove a record and intent for sustained anti-vandal activity. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
All: Thanks very much for the comments, I'll take them on board. I won't request closure of this as I believe processes once begun should end naturally. I would say that perhaps global rollback is becoming too big a deal. Smaller wikis tend to allow a person who has rollback elsewhere to have it on their wiki without formality. Perhaps a lesson could be learned here also. A user who has never been blocked, has used rollback for a long time, is an admin on a popular project and has never vandalized even once, can probably be trusted with rollback globally. I will become more active in SWMT and get back to you in a couple of months; unless, of course, a steward approves this against consensus, lol :) fr33kman t - c 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
While I do think that Global Rollback is a rather a bit big of a deal, there is a good reason for that. Global rollback adds you to more than 'rollback' groups on every wiki. It also adds you to 'autoconfirmed' and gives you access to 'noratelimit', 'autopatrol', and 'suppressredirect' globally, which normal rollback does not do. Check out Global rollback if you want to know more. NuclearWarfare 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes but what does that matter? He's trusted is he not? Majorly talk 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I never said I agree with the current policy. I'm just repeating the rationale that has been told to me. NuclearWarfare 23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
For a user who is demonstrably good, and who is trusted, admission to those other groups also is not a big deal. (btw: I have read what groups you get along with rollback.) fr33kman t - c 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a position of trust but of use, thanks for Your understanding, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done per the above comments. --Erwin 09:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Global rollback for NuclearWarfare (2)

First request, 3 months+ ago I have been working in SWMT, along with some SBL stuff for about the past three or four months, and have totaled about 750 edits on various projects. I haven't been the most active user, but I believe that I have been somewhat helpful in removing spam and vandalism, both of which would be easier with global rollback. I have used rollback extensively on several projects, and I believe that I would be able to use global rollback carefully against blatant vandals and malbots. I know that I have occasionally made mistakes with rushing into things in the past, but I promise to be as careful as possible with Global rollback. Thanks for your consideration, NuclearWarfare 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  •   Support, User is active in spam/vandalism reverting cross-wiki. Because he mentions it, errors were made because user is a human, but he handled it well and is kind to small projects and handles the communities with respect and care, which is important IMHO. Thanks for helping, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • support, per birdy. – Innv | d | s: 08:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • yes, seems fine to me -- Mercy (|) 08:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support user active and trusted--Nick1915 - all you want 08:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm as yet a bit uneasy with this request. NuclearWarfare needs to be careful in the future. As birdy says, an abundance of kindness and care for small projects is needed and rushing into things is far from helpful. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support trusted and responsible person imho. oscar 11:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse per interactions on enwiki. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Status has been granted. Please keep Mike's comment in mind though. --Erwin 09:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I will keep his comments in mind. Thank you. NuclearWarfare 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)