Requests for comment/Global lock of Simon 1996

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Although I commented on this RfC, since a steward marked Simon 1996 case as not done in SRG (see [1]). So I closed this RfC, cheers. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a global lock for Simon 1996.

Alex Shih,請不要鎖定我,我不是有意騷擾你,但是英文維基百科被封鎖對我而言太不公平了! 英文維基百科被封禁時我正在做2018年亞洲運動會的編輯,封禁我就無法做編輯。Simon 1996 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
English translation: Alex Shih, please don't lock me. I'm not intend to disturb you, but it's unfair that I was block in enwiki! I was blocked in enwiki when I was making edits on 2018 Asian Games, I can't edit after being blocked.

— Simon 1996, Special:Diff/18212361

From Alex Shih: Cross-wiki abuse. Sock account Jerry Bill Wu has already been globally locked back on July 6. The main account is currently blocked on and; the user probably should have been blocked on a long time ago as their talk page there indicates they are engaging in the same kind of disruptive editing which led to their initial block on in the first place. On a lesser note, the user has been persistently e-mailing me by Special:EmailUser through and If something can be done about that too, that would be great. Regards, B dash (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence[edit]

(to be added by other users)


(start your !vote with "# {{s}}")

  1. Support Support global lock, but Oppose Oppose global ban per below my comment. pinging Alex Shih,Web SourceContent,Cohaf,胡葡萄,NanoKid,1233 to comment here Hhkohh (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support this comment. Who should it refer to? It would be major blow for Simon 1996 if it is suspected to be same sockpuppet. Web SourceContent Management System 05:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Web SourceContent:I helped to correct the user name of Simon in your post, hope you don't mind.--Cohaf (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


(start your !vote with "# {{oppose}}")

  1. Hhkohh, I've already told you this is not what global ban is for. Indefinite block in two or more wikis is subject to global lock. Global ban is for long term abuse, which is not what this is. Please close this. Alex Shih (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: Seems B dash open this RfC, See [2] Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hhkohh, my apologies, I've struck my comment. B dash, please withdraw this. This is ill-advised. (ec) Even if the page is moved to "global lock", RfC is not necessary. Alex Shih (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. wrong avenue.--Cohaf (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hhkohh, Alex Shih, and Cohaf: Now fixed, it is global lock. --B dash (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    rfc not needed.still wrong more pings please--Cohaf (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    to be clear I'm favour of global lock BUT this RFC is not needed, procedural oppose--Cohaf (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In my opinion global locks should not be used in any controversial cases. --GZWDer (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Opposehe did contributions in ZHWP.Global lock is too strict.NanoKid (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


(start your !vote with "# {{Neutral}}")

  1. Neutral Neutral, I am definitely neutral at this matter. Don't ping me please.--1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 13:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Accounts can not be locked temporarily. See phab:T17294 and phab:T196955.--GZWDer (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the stewards are hesitant to perform a global lock on this account because the block on is only six months, therefore not meeting the conventional standards for global lock (indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis). I suspect the block is only six months due to difference in local policy. Pinging three admins that have dealt with this account recently: Kuailong, Ch.Andrew and Outlookxp. Sorry to ping you all, but may I ask if the account activity for this user is grounds for indefinite block on Chinese Wikipedia? Alex Shih (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alex Shih: Thank you for the notification. It's seen that Simon 1996 is at a loss what to do, beacuse Simon doesn't know how to use {{ping}} or leave a message in others user talk page.(zh:Special:diff/50318559) Truly, Simon isn't familiar with many wikipedia rules, so we should give more chances and teachings for newbie editor.--Ch.Andrew (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Ch.Andrew, thank you very much for your input. I respectfully disagree with your assessment however. I've read the talk page of this user, and it appears to me that they have, for the past one year or so, persistently ignored warnings from a number of different editors on multiple occasions, and continued with mass creation of untranslated pages/low quality translations which is one of the main reasons that led to many of their blocks on Chinese Wikipedia. And this is to ignore the fact they have created a sock puppet account to evade their active block on Chinese Wikipedia, and refused to admit so by apparently (astonishingly) using a bizarre analogy ([3], also posted below this comment). Personally I think it is a stretch to call a 2+ years old account with 24,000+ edits ([4]) as "newbie editor". Alex Shih (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify what I am asking here: if the local policy at indicates that the activity of this account in addition to being a sockmaster is not ground for indefinite block, then I have nothing to ask here as it is becoming apparent that the stewards would unlikely take any action if that is the case. Alex Shih (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "User B is User A's sock puppetry" and "User A is User B's sock puppetry" are different cases, don't you feel contradictory? These cases are very unreasonable! I think some Administrators possible insult Chinese users due USA-Other country's trade dispute. Simon 1996 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alex Shih "User B is User A's sock puppetry" and "User A is User B's sock puppetry" are different cases Simon 1996 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Simon 1996:last word from me, I had conveyed your email to the last reviewing admin AT who declined your unblock, there's nothing more I can or am willing to do. Do not email anybody again. I had also conferred with Alex Shih which they clearly mentioned that several admins on enwiki had informed you per standard offer which you must acknowledge what is wrong and promise not to do so. I think this is going to a CIR/IDHT area already. There is nothing to do on zhwiki lest wait out the 6 months and no more socking, anon editing. On enwiki, it's CU block so that's standard offer area. That said, a global block will not be likely, so please edit constructively on other projects like jawiki or what. End from me and stewards please close this snowy case.--Cohaf (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now, Simon 1996 was blocked indef in enwiki and jawiki. It is time to lock him. Pinging Cohaf, thanksHhkohh (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hhkohh:I guess that calls for global ban. It's ridiculous to put wikibreak as well as semi retirement in unblock requests, as well as changing admins comments at unblock discussions. Pinging @Alex Shih:解决掉了!Thanks for the heads up!--Cohaf (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! It seems to have been blocked due to sockpuppetry on 3 wikis:, and now on Wait for stewards to take decision. Web SourceContent Management System 12:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web SourceContentlet us get the chronology right, the sock puppetry started on zhwiki, then move over to enwiki, since zhwiki do not have our CU (and to Stewards seeing this case, please I beg X100 times to deal with the pending cases, there are a lot of sleepers I suspect), and since the sockpupetry went over to enwiki, CU and Arb Alex Shih CU the data, and afterwhich a steward confirmed on zhwiki data. The jawiki did not do a CU, but based on DUCK and our two CU results. But to set the record clear, zhwiki DID NOT give an indef but rather 6 months per standard sock pupperty case punishment for master. The puppet is indeffed.--Cohaf (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cohaf I have checked on CentralAuth and I'm sorry that you told me about it and you know what it's all about this knowledge. Web SourceContent Management System 15:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web SourceContentThis is really a complex case indeed. No worries, I know the case well as I am following it and monitoring CAT:RFU as well as CU requests at zhwiki.--Cohaf (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hhkohh:what "ban discussion", if it is global ban, it is here. If you are talking about the AN/I-ish stuff for an indeff it will not happen at zhwiki. The sockpuppetry is quite stupid in some sense and it all started with poor machine translations from English/other wiki to zhwiki, we have dedicated CSD for it, CSD G13 and hence most are speedied. However, when this is disruptive, then the entire thing turn into a 3 months block, then he decided to sock to continue this behaviour. I don't really think as local policy we can indef such blocks, as some of their appeals had been successful with the reason "machine translation is not a blockable offence" by one sysop as well as one crat. In addition, there is no community ban process (there is one but rarely used and for machine translation, nope). So now we have to wait for the Stewards to decide on how to proceed. IMO the block of 6 months is quite strict for socking, but given the subsequent offences, justifiable. Most of the blocking admins/crats had been notified, and none is willing to extend the block. --Cohaf (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a user from Chinese Wikipedia and have been continuously keeping an eye on Simon's behavior. I assume that Simon was initially in a good faith of contributing but failed to do so due to poor language ability (sorry for my harsh words but that's true). Multiple users have attempted to guide Simon on improving the language by offering suggestions in kind words, but such efforts were in vain. As a result, some users then warned him for the poor translation and threatened to impose a block, but Simon simply neglected others' comments and continued creating machine-translated articles. This eventually resulted in a block, which then caused Simon to start using sockpuppets so that he could continue creating articles during the block.
  • I personally believe that it is a sad and complicated case in which a good user turns into a long-term abuser due to prolonged unpleasant experience of failure and being criticized. However, considering the important fact that Simon still fails to realize his mistakes (such as machine translation and sockpuppetry), it is suggested that a temporary ban of very long duration (two to three years) shall be imposed. Thank you. (And sorry for my poor English ability ...) --胡葡萄 (talk) (zh-N, en-3, ru-1, uk-1) 10:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @胡葡萄:your assessment is spot on, it's really a good faith contributor who rejected multiple WP:ROPE (albeit in a very harsh manner filled with thistles and thorns). However, they are recalcitrant as well as IMO, very high chance of recidivism. I would like you to clarify that are you for a "2-3 years block" once again - as it cannot happen as explained above. Thanks. --Cohaf (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Cohaf: I believe that long-term abusers might realize their mistakes after a long period of time although they fail to do so right now.To me, it is extremely distressing to see editors with good faith gradually becoming vandals. Such cases often take place in Chinese Wikipedia and shall be prevented as much as possible in my opinion. When I just started editing Wikipedia, I acted like a vandal as I used to create low-quality articles and neglect others' comments, just like what Simon is doing now. Luckily I've become a better editor after some years. So I assume that Simon might be able to improve his ability and attitude after a long peroid of time, but it is sure that such a change must be longly waited for. Thanks! --胡葡萄 (talk) (zh-N, en-3, ru-1, uk-1) 14:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • per this, added users accordingly.----Cohaf (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)14:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what have happened, but his talk page states that:
Please don't treat this problem as something that must be solved within a short period
I am going for harassments.(It seems like a typo. If it is a one-word typo, a possible thing would be: I did not intend to harass you)

--1233 | Questions?| This message is left by him at 15:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am supporting this request. If he wants to edit again, he can request his unlock with promising no more socks by emailing to stewards after 6 months without any edits. Hhkohh (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm confused with this RFC, global lock requests don't need RFC, just request at SRG is enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: this discussion is getting too long, that's probably why this got separated from SRG. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 05:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed that RFC to global ban for 6 months is much appropriate instead. SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Global bans aren't a temporary measure, so that isn't an option here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Locks are (almost always) for uncontroversial case, this has already proven this is not uncontroversial. For global ban, I already said enough at Requests for comment/Global ban for 2018년#Discussions so I won't repeat. — regards, Revi 05:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]