Stewards' noticeboard

Hey all. We're working out how to ratify the Global bans policy on the talk page and at Global bans/ratification. We're likely to hold either a vite ala the one for global sysops, or an RFC. Per one very sensible request, I just wanted to ask in advance for 2-3 Stewards who would be willing to close the discussion (and thus stay uninvolved in the deliberation). Having a couple volunteers in advance will put everyone's mind at ease I think. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

You probably mean "a vote", not "a vite"? Ruslik (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

The whole "three closers" system is not enshrined in policy even on enwiki, let alone globally. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hello everybody,

Since my IPs were quite lot of time used by a spambot (creating self-redirects and nonsense pages, it hopelessly begins to be well-known). Could you just block all my accounts locally and delete the history of my contributions so that the spambot could not use my account to vandalize ? I just want to disappear completely not to be related with a spambot, until I find a mean to get rid of it and create a safe account. Thank you. Nebogipfel (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

Dealt with at Steward_requests/Global#Global_unblock_for_User:Nebogipfel — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

This is not what I was asking for. Could you just do that or is it impossible? Thank you. Nebogipfel (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

You have no evident relationship with a spambot (sulutil:Nebogipfel or luxo:Nebogipfel), and the statements elsewhere simply state that an underlying IP address you used in a dynamically allocated system aligned. As you are within your account, please feel free to update your password, and utilise a strong password. We generally do not block good accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

Could you just delete the history of my contributions? This spambot (or another resembling one) once compromised an account I created and that looked good. I really want to disappear. Thank you. Nebogipfel (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

So a straight answer is, neither your account nor your edits will be deleted. If you want to disappear, stop using it. Bencmq (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

Thekosher is globally blocked, after being banned by Jimbo from all projects, but, without any appropriate discussion on any noticeboard I can see, has had this block lifted on Commons (no search of the Commons administrators noticeboard shows any discussion of him) and a few other locations. Not only does he get people to pay him to edit wikipedia (w:MyWikiBiz), he also has a history of threatening others. A global ban should not be overridden., particularly without discussion. 86.179.74.155 06:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

You're rehashing a two-year old event, as Jimbo said on his enwiki talk page. Drop the stick.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

Also, a global lock is a global lock, that's in effect regardless of local blocks. The account cannot be logged into, even if unblocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

Then how is he editing here? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thekohser The account is still globally locked. Obviously, something has gone wrong with the lock, because it's not working to keep him from logging on. 86.179.74.155 09:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

That account is unattached from SUL. As the block log shows, a local admin removed the local block in the 25 days when the account wasn't globally locked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

Well, then, last question: Isn't that basically block evasion? 86.179.74.155 10:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

Not at all. This is the decision of the local sysops. You should contact them, but I'm sorry stewards can hardly do something here... -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 10:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

No local sysops are available at the moment. See recent changes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

Jasper Deng reports that this is done. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Reply

‎Hi,

Ansiklopedika.org is a general encyclopedia wiki in Turkish which is naturally disliked by most of the Turkish wikipedia users. User:Vito Genovese in the Turkish Wikipedia yesterday has gone back years past in the turkish wikipedia history to clean all the discussions and all other includes that contain the word ansiklopedika and censored all of them. He has got not a cause for that more than personal dislike. It is against the policy about censorship in wikipedia projects. I have tried to explain about the case in the turkish wikipedia but user kibele and use vito genovese censors all about complaints and words that contain the word Ansiklopedika. I have no good English and also very weak about the case so i need your help against the censorship of the word Ansiklopedika in Turkish wikipedia. Thanks a lot.88.249.24.234 09:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Putting it mildly why is strictly necessary, in order to make tr.wiki work, to deal with ansiklopedika? --Vituzzu (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

• 212.121.219.1 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye User:212.121.219.1 Global Edits

User:212.121.219.1 who is permanently blocked in the English, Assyrian, Navaho, Saterland Frisian, Thai and Welsh Wikipedias and temporarily blocked in various other Wikipedias and in Wikimdia Commons is spamming the same images cross-wiki in the Turkey and Azerbaijan country articles again under these IP addresses:

• 2.96.52.41 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye User:2.96.52.41 Global Edits
• 78.147.119.95 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye User:78.147.119.95 Global Edits
• 2.96.58.242 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye User:2.96.58.242 Global Edits

The user was the subject of serious acts of vandalism as had been the case in English Wikipedia until the permanent block: English Wikipedia User talk:212.121.219.1

Other spammings from these addresses is happening cross-wiki and relentlessly so. Apart from vandalism I am afraid that this user has the ability to hack because some of the articles this user edited on were briefly disrupted. The IP address of the user is subject to change but stem from the same region and the pattern is the same. Due to the constantly changing IP addresses, is it possible to semi-protect the Turkey and Azerbaijan articles from IP vandalism, since many Wikipedia encyclopedias in other languages are small and ill prepared to deal with this ongoing vandalism?

Saguamundi 17:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

If the images are the same, the abuse filter will work better. Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Protection of articles is an issue for local wikis, not for stewards, though if requests are left unconsidered at local wikis then global sysops (and stewards) are able to undertake the consideration. The protection is not something that stewards can resolve by imposing a universal decision on communities. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi. I wish to file a complaint against User:Vituzzu for the abuse of his global sysop tool at tpi.wikipedia.org. As the local administrator to that site, I placed a block against a user under the name of Irclogbot around 2 months ago. There was at that time, no indication of the owner of the bot, and given the potential risk of (what I thought to be) a bot which logs IRC being present on the wiki, I proceeded to issue an indef block. About 1 hour ago, Vituzzu, performing a global sysop action, unblocked that bot without speaking to me first or even leaving a message on my talk page to ask me to unblock it.

My issue here is that I subsequently discovered from a discussion about the action with him on IRC in #wikipedia-en that not only did he unblock the bot, he owns the bot - and that to me, at least in my mind, is wrong. You should not be carrying out unblock actions against things or accounts you own. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Since the site has a local administrator (me), I am not happy that this action was performed, and consultation with another steward over this matter tells me that this could be seen as abuse of the tools. Your assistance in clearing this matter up, swiftly, would be welcomed. Thank you. BarkingFish (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Apologies for the error in the title, and thank you Peter Symonds for picking that up. I wrongly assumed the same person because of the user's irc nickname. Sorry. BarkingFish (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I have just been educated about that myself: bots without edits are not supposed to be blocked, they do not need a contact-page until their first edit. So you should not have blocked this one. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Edit conflict, but along the lines of what Seb az86556 was saying, why did you block it in the first place? Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

(ec) no, wait, your reason was different. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Oh, I see, he just blocked it because he felt it was violating a Wikimedia policy without making any attempt to contact the bot owner or find out what the bot did. Makes sense. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Yes, the reason was that I got it the wrong way round. That was my fault. The message had intended to infer that public logging of IRC via Wikipedia was forbidden, per the information here on meta in the IRC FAQ. I blocked this one because the immediate view of the username gave me the impression that the intention of the bot was to log IRC communications via Wikipedia. I am now, thanks to you Seb, only just educated also that bots without edits should not be blocked. So the issue is now two things: I should not have blocked the bot - which I accept, but also that Vituzzu as the owner of the account should not have unblocked it. I accept whatever comes to me for what I did wrong, I have no qualms about that at all. And, Ajraddatz - there was no indication of who owned the bot, I only found that out when I was informed of the unblock in #wikipedia-en. BarkingFish (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

My apologies for overruling you action but as I said on the irc your action has been made with a complete false reason (as you told me on the irc): the logging of most of IRC channel on the wiki is not allowed, while every content from wiki can be used everywhere (!!).

I recognize I would had better asked you before (and actually I didn't see you were on the irc) but honestly I thought it was a clear-cut case (so it perfectly fits our policies) on a global-sysop wiki so it didn't need more attention also considering it was a really low-low-importance issue.

Anyway I'd like to ask you why did you show to be fine with my explanation on the irc and then you started this thread, it's quite a strange behaviour imho. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I wasn't completely fine with your explanation on IRC, you will note above though that part of it was an error in the way I worded the block. As I said, I had no idea who owned it, there was no indication on the talk page or the user page of who owned the account, so I had nobody physically whom I could contact to find out what it was supposed to do, prior to applying the block. It didn't seem to reach you that I have a talk page you could have written on, before doing this, and that you shouldn't be unblocking accounts that you own. A clear cut case (in my mind) is asking someone else to lift the block - on an account you own, it's the equivalent almost of unblocking yourself. Also, just to note - the reason I started the thread was discussion of this with someone else who is a steward, and whom I will not name unless ordered to do so - that person informed me that your actions amounted to abuse of GS privileges. BarkingFish (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Our "final statement" was "well I'd better ask you to do it" but now it seems to find out the "great abuse". Changing your mind is not so clean but is quite legit, the "steward of the Mistery" is also a weird detail but, it is, just a detail.

Anyway, meanwhile I was having that issue on tpi.wiki I was discussing about a similar problem (a completely wrong block) on nv.wiki but I did anything on my own. This clearly shows I thought the block of my irclogbot was just a mistake and it was a clear-cut problem to be solved. Again I apologised about it so it's pointless to go on saying the same things. If you think I did an unrepairable abuse start an rfc about me asking the removal of my tools, honestly I cannot do nothing more than apologising for this supposed COI. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

We leave it there then. However, all stewards please note the message below. Thank you. BarkingFish (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Good evening. Further to the above, please be advised that a local community request has been placed at this location requesting input over the next 7 days, to ask the local community whether we should opt out of the Global sysop program. I will be in touch further should this gain consensus, or if there is no local objection within one week from the opening of the discussion. It may be slightly longer as I am moving to Germany over this coming weekend, and will be out of touch for a few days while I get set up. Please bear with me. Thank you. BarkingFish (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

All this because you made a bad decision blocking a bot... wow. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

This is not a one sided thing, Ajraddatz, and please don't make it sound like it is. I might have made a bad decision - Vituzzu made another one - all I'm doing is asking the community if they still want GS there or not. I will abide by any decision either way, if they say they do, so be it. BarkingFish (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I kinda have to agree, this proposal seems very pointy (pardon the cliché)Frood (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

• Stewards