Requests for comment/Global ban for Sidowpknbkhihj

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. I close this discussion with the fact that the user who submitted this RFC withdrew and that a consensus to enforce a global ban has not been formed. --Sotiale (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sidowpknbkhihj, also known as ヒースロー (Heathrow) on Japanese Wikipedia has been active since April 15, 2019. I have been thinking about starting a global ban request for this one back when a user came to me about new Sidowpknbkhihj socks. However, i don't think it's convincing for me yet until Destroyeraa said this in Sidowpknbkhihj SPI on enwiki: Sidowpknbkhihj should be locked on all meta accounts and be banned from creating new accounts, along with his IP address and all his socks should be locked and prevented from account creation!

With that said, i believe it's time for me to request that Sidowpknbkhihj should be globally banned.

Sidowpknbkhihj satisfies these global ban criterias:

  1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam. On English Wikipedia as 台風14号, Vandjn and 台風20177, they repeatedly continue to create articles without discussing it for concensus (or WP:BRD). In Japanese Wikipedia, this user was known for (Translated into English)
    • "Overproduction of unsourced or single-source substub articles related to aviation, earthquakes, and typhoons."
    • "Self-styled editing and de facto refusal to interact with policies, guidelines, and copyrights."
    • "Voting that does not indicate a reason in line with the specific policy of the deletion request."
    This user is also known for harassment against other users in Japanese Wikipedia especially. Examples are from 台風20177's edit history.
    In other Wikipedias, this user has shown similar tendencies (especially editing without seeking discussion or concensus) exhibited on English Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia, which led them to blocks on German and Vietnamese Wikipedia, and their sock on French Wikipedia, A360-600 eventually got caught in Japanese Wikipedia for similar editing tendencies.
    I forgot to note that Sidowpknbkhihj and their socks have been involved in numerous copyright violations (and with this, i believe the user is a persistent copyright violator, one of the reasons why this user should be globally banned). In English Wikipedia, one of their articles included blatant copyright violations from PAGASA, and possibly includes more copyrighted information from their "splits". In Wikimedia Commons, they have repeatedly uploaded copyright violations. In Japanese Wikipedia, they have warned in advance that they have committed copyright violations previously (I will not give examples from this wiki as it's a very large record). This user also impersonates other users, for example Babni (impersonation of Babmi, which has been fighting against this user for a long time).
  2. The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. In Korean Wikipedia and Wikidata, Sidowpknbkhihj was caught socking as 台風第14号, 台風第15号, and more on the LTA. (and especially on Wikidata only, as 195915VERA) In German Wikipedia, Sidowpknbkhihj was blocked for "Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar" (Not here). In Spanish and Dutch Wikipedia, Sidowpknbkhihj was blocked for having an inappropriate username. In Vietnamese Wikipedia, Sidowpknbkhihj was likely blocked for disruptive editing (no reason given). In Russian Wikipedia, Vandjn (a Sidowpknbkhihj sock) was blocked for block evasion.
  3. The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems. As Sidowpknbkhihj theirself and 台風14号 in English Wikipedia, this user had been ignoring warnings and talk page messages repeatedly users and other editors sent at them. In case of 台風14号, they replied to me that they will be not socking again and they will only edit as 台風14号 but guess what? They kept socking. As Posiko, they finally tried to discuss about creation of Airbus A300-600 article which they tried to create, but once Posiko got caught they did not bother continuing to work on the article and when they show up as 台風20177 they didn't bother to discuss and try to gain concensus on splitting these articles again. As such, look at this diff 1 and diff 2 here. In Japanese Wikipedia, as 台風14号 they confessed for continued socking and revealed all of their socks (for which i have requested global locks in all of them), promised to only use that account as the only account they will use, and also promised to quit editing Wikipedia for 6 months. Instead, they kept creating accounts again and refuses to quit.

With that said, if Sidowpknbkhihj wants to edit again, they need to seriously follow their promise (not ingkar janji in Indonesian) of not creating any accounts and Sidowpknbkhihj should not edit on all Wikimedia projects for more than one year or so. By the way, i have this Wikimedia account right here User:SMB99thx, had more than 500 edits, and i have been here since May 2013. I'm also in progress of notifying this user and notifying the community where this user had been edited in all Wikimedia wikis, though i have to do this manually since i'm not an administrator nor a steward. SMB99thx 04:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I have notified enough wikis in where Sidowpknbkhihj and their socks they actively edited in. SMB99thx 13:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Support Support as a proposer. In order to be able to participate in the discussion since Sidowpknbkhihj is globally locked (i acknowledged that), for now i have requested the stewards via e-mail (not disclosing) that Sidowpknbkhihj should be unlocked for now until this RfC runs to it's course. SMB99thx 05:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What is this RfC exactly about? This former user is already infinitely globally blocked (a.k.a. "locked", a.k.a. "frozen") since 2019-11-08. Are you looking for a consensus to infinitely globally block him for a second time for some further penalty? :-) Or are you looking for a consensus to override the steward action - so replacing infinite global block with something lesser restrictive? --NeoLexx (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, this RfC is about getting Sidowpknbkhihj globally banned (For you, i'm looking for a concensus to infinitely globally block him for a second time for some further penalty). I'm not looking for Sidowpknbkhihj to be globally unlocked (or looking for a consensus to override Ruslik0's action) - in my email to Wikimedia Stewards, i'm looking to getting Sidowpknbkhihj temporarily globally unlocked in order to be able to participate on this RfC (ultimately i'm intending to get Sidowpknbkhihj defend himself), and regardless of this RfC's results Sidowpknbkhihj should be globally locked again. In any case, i do not intend to let Sidow get away with this again. 'nuff said. If you feel my answer to you isn't enough, then feel free to Oppose Oppose this global ban! Thank you, SMB99thx 10:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support Strong support: Sockpuppets should only be used for the following reasons per policy:
    • Clean start
    • Fallback account
    • Anti-impersonation
    • Bot

It seems that these socks are not used for any reasons above, but for disruption and sanction-evading. Also, the disruptive behaviour is not merely vandalism or spam, so a GBan is welcome. Insu III (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Have you edited as another account in the past? A new account being created and the second edit being commenting on a global ban, while quoting policies, seems somewhat suspicious... Frood (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose not enough crosswiki disruption to justify an action as extreme as a global community ban from all Wikimedia projects. A global ban should only be implemented in case of an extreme case of long-term crosswiki abuse, and this is not the case here. There's been quite a bit of socking and all, but nowhere close to the level needed for justifying global bans. JavaHurricane 11:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose As I do not think it will add anything useful to an existing global lock.--GZWDer (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. Mit der Bazooka nach Mücken schießen. Syrcro (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Unneccesery --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 07:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I am not sure if SMB99thx knows what a global ban is for. Chaddy (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment See also ja:wikipedia:進行中の荒らし行為/長期/ヒースロー. 14:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose The account already is global locked. What a global ban is useful for? --Matthiasb (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose not necessary at this point. Frood (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment With 2 in favor (me as a proposer and one from a new account) of global ban and with 8 in opposition of global ban, i'll thereby withdraw this global ban RfC. Now i know why the concensus is in opposition of global ban. Normally, global bans by Wikimedia community are normally for very toxic but otherwise not globally locked users (always been like that) and for globally locked LTA's like this, they are done via office action instead. It is obvious that this isn't the case here. Previous RfCs of global bans involving globally locked LTAs (see List of globally banned users#Unsuccessful community global ban requests) generally end up being closed as invalid because they did not meet the criteria for obtaining the concensus for global ban - but this one happens to meet all of these criteria. I did everything to make sure that this RfC meet these criteria so i could set the example for future RfCs like this and surely enough, the concensus i obtained from this RfC is opposing the global ban. And this happens to be my first RfC as well. So, from what i can get in this RfC is:
    • I know that global ban requests of globally locked LTA like this is not neccessary
    • If you plan to request a global ban similar to this case, don't do it! I'm sending this message so you don't need to.
    • Until i learn more about Wikimedia policies enough (probably when i become an admin), i will not start RfCs like this again. This is a learning experience anyway.
I'm considering letting this RfC runs it's course, but i believe this is enough. Thanks for participating this RfC, and thank you for letting me know and understand how global banning works. Stay safe everybody, SMB99thx 00:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]