Talk:Steward requests/Global: Difference between revisions

This page is for discussions related to the Steward requests/Global page. Please remember to: Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~) Remain civil and polite during discussions. Place new text under old text (start a new post). For older conversations you can see the archive index.

I don't know if Grawp's request should be archived] (perhaps to at least acknowledge the fella that inspired global blocking?) but shouldn't we have an archiving method for housekeeping/record tracking in place? rootology (T) 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done already.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

We need to discuss this a bit to get the process well understood, I think. (This was raised on stewards-l but talking about it here may make sense?) ... this exemption is quite helpful to someone that wanted to do some serious harm. So I think handing it out probably should take the standard "3 stewards and a short waiting period" process, at least at first. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we can have same policy as Global rollbacker .3 steward in favor and it least 3 days.and user should not be blocked in any project .--Mardetanha ^talk 18:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and it's much simpler than having a different policy for each group. —Pathoschild 19:39:08, 04 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The current rollback policy fits this well. Angela 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let's do it that way then. I cribbed the stuff from the Global Rollback about needing a global account etc. and the wording about 3 days. Take a look at Steward_requests/Global#Request_for_global_IP_block_exempt and see what you think. However I wasn't quite sure if we have an explanation of what this exemption IS, so Global IP block exemption (which is analogous to how the rollback section links to Global rollback) remains a redlink. thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There has been discussion elsewhere as well, Wikimedia_Forum#Global_IP_Block_Exempt_Group for example. I don't see a strong consensus to implement this, so I don't see why we are rushing this forward. I'd suggest that we return to discussion of whether to implement the proposal at all rather than talking about specific aspects of implementation.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

We're getting requests. We need to either handle them, or state we are not going to grant this pending discussion. Right now I tagged every request with a "we're not doing this yet". Smithing on the header doesn't mean we are doing it, it means smithing on the header. The discussion you refer to is one I was not aware of when I borught discussion here (after it was raised on stewards-l, I think maybe Thogo wasn't aware of that discussion either). We have a bit of a mess here, this has been moving in fits and starts for a while... maybe meta needs a centralised discussion box or something, because I suspect maybe some of us miss some of the discussion. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, there's no consensus to do it at this point; the outstanding requests should be marked {{not done}} until there is discussion and consensus.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Which isn't happening. Why exactly is it a bad idea to grant this? What I've read so far is confusing and seems like there is more to say. Please explain further. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please note I am not saying it is or isn't a bad idea. (although it looked like we did consensus, rightly or wrongly, at one point)... I am asking why. I think more explanation is needed. Maybe it is. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Upshot? Note Steward requests/Global#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption exists. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Comments are welcome on the draft policy for an opt-out version of global administrators at Global sysops/opt-out proposal. Further details are available at that page. Comments, concerns, and anything you care to mention would be appreciated at the talk page. Thank you, NuclearWarfare 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Twice I've been reverted for using  Support. Where does it say that only stewards can use this? NonvocalScream 03:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is long-standing practice for only stewards to use {{yes}} or {{no}}, so I've clarified this in the page header. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. I would posit that it is permissable for any editor to use those colouring for comments. It is just silly to say only a steward can add a red or green background to comments. Best, NonvocalScream 03:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have limited time. I concede to your points. NonvocalScream 03:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

• There is purpose to distinguishing stewards from others, given that they are the arbitrators of the process. Just use  Support, or nothing. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Per above, I've withdrawn my objection to the process. NonvocalScream 03:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello everyone. In the first place I would like to know how to put my "resume" to be a candidate of a global sysop. Also I would like this comment to be respected please (not offending anyone). Thank you Melara... 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As you're asking about it here, you already know that the vote is ongoing, I assume. If (and that's a fairly big if) the vote passes, we'll probably set up a page for global permissions alongside this page or as a subpage of it. At the moment, considering the measure is not passed, we're not accepting any applications for the permission at all. Thank you for your interest. Kylu 23:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Mr. Kylu.

P.S. if ur a miss or mrs im sorry lol

I'm honoured to be asked to vote, but I don't believe I've done 150 edits on one subject (?) I want wikipedia to be the best it can be, and I'm not so good at referencing my entries. This disqualifies me as a good editor. I'd better get more familiar with cut and paste and having different pages open etc.Thanks,& Good luck with ongoing efforts.I'll work harder at learning the rules.58.167.205.169 14:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)58.167.205.169 14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking we should spawn a new page for "Global permissions" due to the large number of new requests and categories of permissions, and change this one to ... "Global restrictions" maybe? Any comments/ideas? Kylu 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yea, but I suggest Steward requests/Global sysop (Link SRGS),Steward requests/Global rollback (Link SRGR), Steward requests/Global block (Link SRGB) ecc :-) It's my opinion :-))) --.snoopy. ✉ 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think a separate page for global permissions would be a good idea, but I doubt we need pages for each permission. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Echoing Juliancolton -- as well, we should start using transcluded subpages, I think.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agree completely. Having discussion subpages for adminship requests and not global sysop requests is just bizarre. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's only true for Meta adminship requests. SRP adminship requests are still all on one page. But yes, having subpages is a good idea. Sukida 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

An alternative is to hold elections on a separate page, then leave a request on this page when there's an actual request. This mirrors the way we handle local permissions, and would let people watch elections or requests separately. —Pathoschild 18:31:53, 08 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually I think that we need them for the "global sysops" ones. I do not see a need to create a subpage to request a gblock/lock, that's a bit impractical IMHO. Perhaps we should use Global sysops/Requests/USER as it happens on commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests? Once the discussion is finished if successful, the user post a request as it happens on Requests for permissions. Just my two cents.

— Dferg (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Subpages for each rights request sound very much like unneeded bureaucracy to me. And if you have a request on a non-transcluded subpage first, probably many people just won't notice it. --MF-W 18:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Either way, I've split global permissions to Steward requests/Global permissions, since this page was getting too long to navigate easily and there seem to be no objections. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I wonder whether that will keep up when global sysop isn't all that new anymore. I'm not saying that I disagree here, but in general I think we should keep the number of different request pages to a minimum. For what it's worth, I like Pathos' idea of having separate election pages and using SRG to close elections. --Erwin 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow... at this rate, I might start thinking people take my suggestions seriously or something! o.o;; Kylu 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The instructions say "Only IP addresses can be globally blocked at this moment" [1], however this venue seems to now accept named accounts for blocking (where stewards apparently use their local rights to individually block accounts on other wikis).

One recent request [2] led to an erroneous block on en.wiki [3] contrary to en.wiki global rights policy. It is probably a good idea to add a reminder to review local Global rights policy before taking action on named accounts. Respectfully, –xeno (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am herewith kindly informing you of a request stated on my talkpage. Not being a native speaker and writer of your language but still hoping to made an appropriate fulfilled reaction to reply, I am remaining with utmost respect to be sincerely yours: user talk:D.A. Borgdorff per 86.83.155.44 01:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC) ... Post Scriptum: in the mean time I have transferred this into the main page: dAb per 86.83.155.44 17:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder to folks, please don't post your requests here, do it on the content page where we watch for them. Kylu 03:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm posting this to make administrators and stewards aware of an ongoing problem we've been having with an anonymous editor in Germany trolling across multiple Wikimedia projects.

Several weeks ago, an editor requested^[4] en.wikipedia administrators block an anonymous editor (see w:en:User talk:84.61.131.141) who was disruptively creating unnecessary pages that then needed deletion. I did this then looked further at what was going on. I found an extensive pattern of cross-wiki editing by an anonymous editor in Germany in 2009 and 2010. This included vandalism as well as benign edits; this person's IP addresses had been blocked at different times on different projects. I catalogued some of this on a user subpage of mine:

• w:en:User:A. B./Sandbox20 (permanent link)

This person seemed to have some interesting habits, including:

• Creating almost 300 unnecessary, irrelevant and sometimes offensive article talk page redirects on en.wikipedia. Some were re-created many times (this person clearly doesn't like certain German train stations!)

Deleted page titles including number of times deleted

1. w:en:Schindlers Lift - 1
2. w:en:Talk:$ABAM - 3
3. w:en:Talk:23rd man - 1
4. w:en:Talk:ANUS - 6
5. w:en:Talk:Anixe - 2
6. w:en:Talk:Anixe HD - 2
7. w:en:Talk:ARD 1 - 1
8. w:en:Talk:ASSHOLE - 2
9. w:en:Talk:Bibel - 6
10. w:en:Talk:Bingu Motherfucker - 1
11. w:en:Talk:Bingu Mutharika - 1
12. w:en:Talk:Bingu wa Motherfucker - 7
13. w:en:Talk:Bingu wa mutharika - 1
14. w:en:Talk:Boykott - 2
15. w:en:Talk:Cantellated - 3
16. w:en:Talk:Chlor - 2
17. w:en:Talk:Con****er - 9
18. w:en:Talk:CUNT - 4
19. w:en:Talk:Deine Mutter - 3
20. w:en:Talk:Dünamo - 2
21. w:en:Talk:Dortmund Hauptbahnhof stinkt - 10
22. w:en:Talk:Dortmund Hauptbahnhof sucks - 8
23. w:en:Talk:Dortmund Hbf stinkt - 3
24. w:en:Talk:Dortmund Hbf sucks - 3
25. w:en:Talk:Edward Cocksucker - 2
26. w:en:Talk:Essen Hbf stinkt - 2
27. w:en:Talk:Essen Hbf sucks - 2
28. w:en:Talk:Ethel Motherfucker - 4
29. w:en:Talk:FC Scheiße - 2
30. w:en:Talk:FC Scheiße 04 - 3
31. w:en:Talk:FC Scheisse - 3
32. w:en:Talk:FC Scheisse 04 - 3
33. w:en:Talk:FC Schlacke - 3
34. w:en:Talk:FC Schlacke 04 - 4
35. w:en:Talk:Fisted - 1
36. w:en:Talk:Fliken - 5
37. w:en:Talk:Hakenkreuz - 1
38. w:en:Talk:Haplogy - 6
39. w:en:Talk:Hurensohn - 4
40. w:en:Talk:Immanuel Cunt - 1
41. w:en:Talk:Inzest - 5
42. w:en:Talk:Iod - 2
43. w:en:Talk:Jarvis Cocksucker - 3
44. w:en:Talk:Jerman - 5
45. w:en:Talk:Jichael Mackson - 1
46. w:en:Talk:Joe Cocksucker - 3
47. w:en:Talk:Jorja - 4
48. w:en:Talk:Kentucky schreit ficken - 5
49. w:en:Talk:Kinderpornografie - 1
50. w:en:Talk:Kupfer - 1
51. w:en:Talk:Linzey Cocksucker - 2
52. w:en:Talk:Mark Cocksucker - 2
53. w:en:Talk:McDoof - 4
54. w:en:Talk:Mißbrauch - 1
55. w:en:Talk:Micky Maus - 4
56. w:en:Talk:Microshit - 6
57. w:en:Talk:Microsuck - 5
58. w:en:Talk:Mikrosoft - 1
59. w:en:Talk:Missbrauch - 1
60. w:en:Talk:Mitsu - 1
61. w:en:Talk:Monikas Vater - 1
62. w:en:Talk:Mutterficker - 1
63. w:en:Talk:Niggeria - 5
64. w:en:Talk:Omnitruncated - 5
65. w:en:Talk:Opfer - 3
66. w:en:Talk:Papst - 6
67. w:en:Talk:Piigs - 3
68. w:en:Talk:Russian occupation zone - 3
69. w:en:Talk:S-umlaut - 1
70. w:en:Talk:Scheiße 04 - 2
71. w:en:Talk:Scheisse 04 - 2
72. w:en:Talk:Schindler's Lift - 6
73. w:en:Talk:Schindlers Lift - 6
74. w:en:Talk:Schlacke - 3
75. w:en:Talk:Schlacke 04 - 3
76. w:en:Talk:Schland - 4
77. w:en:Talk:Schwanzlutscher - 3
78. w:en:Talk:Selbstmord - 1
79. w:en:Talk:Sexuelle Nötigung - 1
80. w:en:Talk:Sexueller Mißbrauch von Kindern - 1
81. w:en:Talk:Sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern - 1
82. w:en:Talk:Shorpe Problem - 3
83. w:en:Talk:S****horpe Problem - 3
84. w:en:Talk:Sieben - 4
85. w:en:Talk:SPFCCMT - 1
86. w:en:Talk:Strelow - 5
87. w:en:Talk:Suizid - 2
88. w:en:Talk:Syl Cheney-Cocker - 2
89. w:en:Talk:Syl Cheney-Cocksucker - 3
90. w:en:Talk:Uni$y$ - 3
91. w:en:Talk:Urheberrecht - 1
92. w:en:Talk:Vindows Wista - 1
93. w:en:Talk:W. D. Cocksucker - 2
94. w:en:Talk:Wolfswagen - 1
95. w:en:Talk:Wortbruch - 3

I can only see deleted contributions on en.wikipedia; I don't know if this person does the same thing on other projects.

• Asking numerous, often interesting, open-ended questions at reference desks on this and other projects. Sample reference desk and article talk page discussions (out of hundreds):
  • w:en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2009 November 15#Free Burnside group B(2,4)
  • w:en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 March 11#Chemical compounds with many elements
  • w:en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 March 13#PIGS
  • w:en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 March 16#Double-ace straight
  • w:en:Talk:North Germanic languages/Archive 1#No voiced sibilants?

• In June 2009, edit-warring on it and fr.wikipedia over their "ß" articles:
  • w:fr:Eszett^[5]
  • w:it:ß^[6]

• This person seems very well-informed and highly educated, especially in mathematics.

• This person seems widely multilingual and very, very fluent in English; he or she just as easily might be German or one of the millions of foreigners in Germany.

Here's an example of the user's behaviour

Using a recent IP, 84.61.131.141, he edited many projects over several weeks:

• w:ca:Especial:Contribucions/84.61.131.141
• commons:Special:Contributions/84.61.131.141
• w:cs:Speciální:Příspěvky/84.61.131.141
  • w:cs:Diskuse s wikipedistou:84.61.131.141
• w:de:Spezial:Beiträge/84.61.131.141
  • Blocked^[7]
• wikt:de:Spezial:Beiträge/84.61.131.141
  • wikt:de:Benutzer Diskussion:84.61.131.141
  • Blocked^[8]
• w:enUser talk:84.61.131.141
  • • w:en:Special:Contributions/84.61.131.141
  • Blocked^[9]
• w:eo:Speciala:Kontribuoj/84.61.131.141
  • Blocked^[10]
• w:es:Especial:Contribuciones/84.61.131.141
• w:fi:Toiminnot:Muokkaukset/84.61.131.141
• w:fr:Spécial:Contributions/84.61.131.141
  • w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:84.61.131.141
  • Blocked^[11]
• w:it:Speciale:Contributi/84.61.131.141
• w:ja:特別:投稿記録/84.61.131.141
• w:la:Specialis:Conlationes/84.61.131.141
• w:lt:Specialus:Indėlis/84.61.131.141
• wikt:nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/84.61.131.141
  • wikt:nl:Overleg gebruiker:84.61.131.141
• w:nn:Spesial:Bidrag/84.61.131.141
• w:no:Spesial:Bidrag/84.61.131.141
• w:pl:Specjalna:Wkład/84.61.131.141
  • w:pl:Dyskusja wikipedysty:84.61.131.141
• w:pt:Especial:Contribuições/84.61.131.141
• w:sv:Special:Bidrag/84.61.131.141
• w:tr:Özel:Katkılar/84.61.131.141

To my surprise, despite hundreds of disruptive edits, I'm not sure we've always "connected the dots" across the 40+ IP addresses this person has used to see the overall pattern.

Partial list of IPs used in chronological order from oldest to newest

In particular, note the deleted contributions and the x-wiki contributions (and blocks):

All of these IPs traceroute to Germany.

I left a message on the German Wikipedia; they have some familiarity with this person:

• w:de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Botschaft#Odd cross-wiki behaviour by someone in Germany; sometimes includes edit-warring and disruptive page creation

Discussion on en.wikipedia:

• w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross-wiki vandal flying under the radar 22 months: 280+ bogus page creations, 40+ IPs (permanent link)

Just recently, I have seen German IPs editing en.wikipedia's reference desks that are likely related:

I think our friend is probably behind much of this but I have been content to leave these accounts alone as long as they were not disruptively creating bogus pages. I recommend, however, that any German IP creating talk page redirects of the type listed above be globally blocked on sight without warning for 2 to 4 weeks.

I expect you will be getting occasional requests to block IPs belonging to this person. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I want it to create acount but a block page came saying im blocked for a year and i dont know why cause i never created acount to be blocked! Ill be glad to admin if he clears these misundrestandings

Your IP is globally blocked, because it's an open proxy, see here. Perhaps you could create an account from another IP? Trijnstel 21:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK i created Account but today i got blocked again for no reason even i done some good editing in Kang ho song page, and now someone blocked me!!! so please Admins help to unblock me.

I gave you IP block-exempt in English Wikipedia. Hope this will help. Ruslik 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

This page shouldn't be called just "/Global" anymore. That was its name when all global requests were done here, but since permissions requests were changed it doesn't make much sense. It should be called "Global restrictions" as suggested on a previous discussion above or "Global blocking" as it is defined on recent changes header... or any better.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 21:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, this might sort out some confusion that occasionally arises. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not see a need for any rename here. Keep the titles short and simple, please. Also, this page title is used in system messages and log entries. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The reason is that there is no page on this project used to solve *all* global requests. This page is only used to make block-related requests - (un)b/locks. Other procedures were splitted on different pages, so it is "global" what? Maybe this page should be kept as a disambiguation to cross-wiki requests. Well, at least it makes sense to me as a more organized division.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 22:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Making it a disambiguation page would break a lot of links, both internal and external. Jafeluv 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Page should have an unambiguous name. Steward requests/Global blocks is a logical name.

Steward requests/Global should be a disambiguation ot both "Global blocks" and "Global permissions". And links can be adjusted ... axp_de^Hello! 19:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Internal links can be adjusted. What about external links? Furthermore, this page is linked from log entries such as the global account log and global block log. Those links would be broken since they can't be changed. Jafeluv 22:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No need to rename as it will unnecessary break links in logs which could cause a lot of problems. I've redirected Steward requests/Global block(s|ing), Steward requests/Global lock(s|ing) to SRG, so if anyone tries to find that page, they'll get redirected to this one. From what I see, it is quite clearly stated in the Recent Changes box and the {{steward request}} template what this page is for, so there should be no confusion. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand. If it would cause any problem, it's better not to do. Those redirects might be enough. Thanks.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 22:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here I described how I have been bullied by arbcom. I'd like Stewards to help me please.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Solving local conflicts outside stewards scope. es:Magister Mathematicae 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore en.wiki's community is large enough to supervise its own elected bodies. I'm considering to delete that page since it's definitely out of meta's scope. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please let it stay for a few days. It is in my user space. I added this page after this exchange. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with fellow steward Vituzzu that both the request and the page are out of scope for Meta, and the should be deleted as out of scope, an attack page against other Wikimedians, and a violation of WM:NOT #6 and #11. There are plenty of non-wiki websites who would be happy to host such information. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please point specific "attacks against other Wikimedians", and I'll be happy to remove these.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Comment It is a request for help and for fairness. I am completely blocked on English wikipedia, my talk page's access is removed, my email blocked. I have absolutely no other means to request some help. I do not know where to turn to. Please help me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
• Comment Pages like this are usually allowed on Meta if they are a preparation for some kind of wiki procedure. I think giving Mbz1 a few days to decide is only fair. The page contains no personal attacks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  I have to be honest. I have no more resources left to pursue my plea anywhere, but meta. Th last email I got from arbcom stated they will not respond any of my requests at all for at least a year, and if I dare to email them during this year, they will not respond my requests for two years.So my only hope is Meta now.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  I thought it had been made clear to you that Meta can't, and in this case feels no need to anyway, overrule a ban placed by the en.wp arbcom? "Pursuing your plea" here while knowing that is the case is pretty well useless for anything but sharpening your axe. Fluffernutter (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Meta will do nothing for you, though, as your request is outside the scope of Meta. There is no indication that the EnWiki process and people are corrupt. You do not agree with their resolution; you are entitled do disagree, but you are not entitled to disrupt multiple projects in your disagreement. I believe I can speak with confidence for my fellow stewards (and any one of them should correct me if I am wrong) that we will do nothing in response to your plea, since there is nothing to be done. The EnWiki process was followed and a resolution was reached. It is not Meta's concern. If you do not like EnWiki, you may vote with your feet and leave the project. Whether a non-attacking page complaining about EnWiki in your userspace is acceptable may be up for discussion, but a formal request to do something will be refused, as it is not Meta's place to interfere with the proper running of a local project. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I believe you're discussing two things at once:The scope of Meta and the corruption of arbcom.

Yes,my request is within Meta's scope. "Created as Meta-Wikipedia in November 2001, it now serves several distinct roles: Discussion and formulation of the Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, and in particular policy discussion." I was blocked in violation of the blocking policy. I was refused dispute resolution in violation of another policies. My request should probably be treated more broadly like maybe discussing how arbcom is treating blocked editors. I only know that no editor should be treated the way I have been. It is inhuman.

I have proven that arbcom is corrupt. I have proven it with the differences. I cannot either agree or disagree with their "resolution". I was given none.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Stewards are tasked with technical implementation of community consensus, and dealing with emergencies, accordingly they cannot assist in your request, and nor should they. At some point escalation stops, and there is a resolution that is seen as final; not everyone is happy with the result, and one has to move on. Move on. Your actions and words here and other places demonstrate that a level of disruption follows you around, and you have to understand that people don't have to tolerate or accept it. After words and explanation fail, and what one gets back is a "mouthful", rather than reflection or a change of approach, then others will simply stop arguing with you, and/or try to ignore you, and when that fails, then a block is the only tool left. You get to choose when you stop. billinghurst sDrewth 03:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the cross wiki bot issues that are current I have seen IPs today that are blocked on some projects as open proxies that are still abusing others. What are the views about gblocks on such IPs? It seems a bit odd to me that we are not globally blocking them for some reasonable period, say 6 months min, if they are being abused (if they aren't I tend to leave them alone anyway)? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

There are many open proxies and tor exit nodes on the web, on it.wiki I parsed them via calc and blocked the IPs using a pywiki script (given to me by Magister Matemathicae), unfortunately I cannot find globablock among apis and I cannot see any working solution to massively gblock IPs. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

There's a gadget to do that; although it currently does not work. We need to update: MediaWiki:Gadget-massblock.js, MediaWiki:Gadget-blockoptions.js, MediaWiki:Gadget-globalblockoptions.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-globalmassblock.js. Perhaps Krinkle or Hoo_man knows how to do. Then access Special:GlobalMassBlock et voilà. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC) What about a ticket asking for a real special page for this?Reply

More a case of shall I make a point of mentioning it when requesting gblocks? I tend to prefer not to tell stewards what I think they should do unless it is really necessary...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can I get unblocked quicker on November 6, 2012? comment added by 68.3.67.81 (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Probably not by anyone except for the steward that blocked you. Best inquire at the talk page of MBisanz (talk · contribs) and see what it was that was no acceptable, and how you can modify your actions to get the block removed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

How? comment added by 68.3.67.81 (talk) 4:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like advice about what to do with this editor. He is quite young and I am one of several editors on English Wikipedia who tried to help him understand the rules. He showed promise and joined an adoption program before completely flouting his adoption agreement and I recently endorsed his one year block. He has also been blocked on Wikisource and Wikinews and has a lengthy list of warnings on Commons. On English Wikipedia, he repeatedly made edits from the IP address 74.131.177.233 (SPI). Now that IP address is making vandalizing edits to Simple Wikipedia and Starship9000 is providing warnings, including "If you do it again, i will report you." I've reported him to checkusers on that wiki, but it seems like there is a pattern of abuse that warrants a response from a high level. I've never encountered an editor like him, so I'm looking for advice. Andrewman327 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also note User:Rschen7754/Reports/Cross-wiki hat collectors/Starship9000. --Rschen7754 06:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a really useful table. Andrewman327 (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Now Starship9000 has expanded his socking to Commons. Andrewman327 (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear stewards, please forgive me for all the vandalism I have committed. This time, I promise to not to vandalize no more and please, believe me 'cause I am really, truly, genuinely honest this time. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.3.67.81 (talk)

Hello. Do you think we should add the requirement of notifying users of lock discussions? I'm asking because of this help request. We don't need to do this for obvious spambots, vandals, or complete trolls, but maybe it's a good idea to add it to the instructions at least for questionable and non-obvious cases. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looks a bit like as if this would be an unnecessary rule creation, such accounts are not lockable usually anyway. --MF-W 21:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

On all wikis, users have to be notified when a discussion related to them is taking place, particularly at administrators' noticeboards. Sometimes they are even notified of insignificant things (e.g., "mentioned you in an edit"). It is thus absolutely puzzling, and jaw-dropping, that users who are facing the most significant and extreme of all outcomes, i.e. having their accounts globally locked, are not being notified of it.

There is another general point to be made here. Admins involved in the block of a user on a local wiki should not be allowed to request that his/her account be globally locked, for obvious reasons. Some admins are known to fabricate evidence to block users, and while said users are blocked these admins can go to Meta, and ask that they be globally locked, without the users being given the chance to defend themselves against any accusation. Speaking from personal experience (and, incidentally, I only discovered that some people were trying to get me globally locked one month after the fact), one admin made the false claim that I had "been abusing email", even though he later admitted not to have confirmed that claim, nor to have read any of my emails, which still didn't prevent him from presenting it here as a fact. Furthermore, as users are not notified that they are being considered as candidates for a global lock, they can't defend themselves against such dishonest accusations. Even if they end up not being globally locked, the false accusations remain there, unchecked. This points to the most worrisome fact of all, which is that stewards are apparently too lazy to check any of the accusations being presented as facts, and just take them on faith. Apparently they think that the admins who request global locks would never lie. Got news for you, admins lie all the time. (If you don't think people in power can be bad people, you should ask the Germans.)

Notifying users whose accounts were requested to be globally locked is not a nice thing to do, nor politeness, nor charity. It should be mandatory. Non negotiable. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Most global locks are executed quickly, and discussion is not needed for what Pi describes as "obvious spambots, vandals, or complete trolls". If a lock is not immediately executed or declined for some reason, whether or not the reason for hesitating has been stated, one might reasonably presume some discussion might be useful. For such cases it would be appropriate to notify the subject of the proceedings.

(Daniel: (1) Of course involved parties, administrators or others, have standing to bring a request here. (2) Exemplifying Godwin's law does not help your case. It is precisely the sort of thing that leads people to regard your style of argumentation as trollish.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

You agree that the "subject of the proceedings" (except in the cases Pi mentions) should be notified, so you are not in disagreement with me (or with anybody, I should hope).

My "argument" doesn't follow from my reminder to people that those in power can be bad ("Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."), so bringing up Godwin's law, and linking to it, doesn't make you look knowledgeable nor does it show I am trolling. In fact, I was again not notified by another involved admin, who yet again not only blocked me on a local wiki (against policy), but also came here and asked that I be locked on all wikis, with the false assertion that I had sent another person's passport via email (where that other person is my brother). The fact that I didn't do any such a thing, and that my brother doesn't even have a passport, can't be pointed out if the person under charges isn't notified. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

You should stop bringing up other discussions in this discussion, especially when it is off-topic. Stay on topic....nobody cares about said issues you have with other users, especially when it has nothing to do with the current discussion. Razorflame 15:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply