Steward requests/Global

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Erwin (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 2 August 2010. It may differ significantly from the current version.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
<translate> Requests and proposals</translate> Steward requests (Global) <translate> latest archive</translate>
This page hosts requests for requesting Global (un)blocks, locks and hidings. Note that requests for global permissions are now handled here. Proposals for new groups should be made on Meta:Babel.
To make a request, read the relevant policy (global blocking) and make a request below. Please indicate why a global block is necessary and for how long. Only IP addresses can be globally blocked, for user accounts, please post under Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding section.
Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Requests for global (un)block

Symbol comment vote.svg Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Your request might be rejected if you don't follow the instructions.
Please also review Global blocking. Only IP addresses can be globally blocked at this moment. Please see #Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding if your request involves an account.
Instructions for making a request

Before requesting, make sure that:

  1. You know the IP address(es) you wish to have globally blocked or unblocked.
  2. For blocks, the global blocking criteria are met.
  3. For unblocks, your request addresses the original reason for blocking the IP, if any.
When requesting that your IP be unblocked, note that stewards need to know your IP address to even consider a request.
To find your IP, please visit
You are not required to disclose your IP in public - you may make requests privately to any steward on IRC or by email.

None currently

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

Symbol comment vote.svg Please be sure to follow the instructions below:
Your request might be rejected if your request doesn't include the necessary information.
Instructions for making a request

Before requesting that a global account be (un)locked, please be sure that:

  1. You have evidence of cross-wiki disruption from the account(s).
  2. You can show that it is not feasible to use local-only blocks or other measures like page protection to combat the disruption.
  3. You have considered making the request in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect, especially for account names which will be hidden, or for urgent requests.
To make a request for an account to be locked or unlocked
Copy the template below to the bottom of this section and explain why the account(s) should be locked/unlocked.
=== Global lock/unlock for [[user:Foo|Foo]] ===
{{status}} <!-- do not remove this template -->
*{{LockHide|username|hidename=1}} <!-- if you do not want the name to be visible on this page -->
Reasons, etc, --~~~~

Global lock for Si Gam Acèh

Status:    Done

Recently, this user has performed a string of actions which show an unwillingness to abide by Wikimedia policies and norms. The root cause of the issue is that certain projects (notably European language Wikipedias) host images of Muhammad. Si Gam Acèh apparently feels that he can single-handedly overturn the local policies and have these images deleted, and if not, he'll revoke permission to use his contributions.

While I can't blame him for trying to abide his religious beliefs, I think the proper reaction should have been to simply leave Wikimedia, since the projects did not agree with his views and attempts to enforce them upon the projects. As the abuse is ongoing, and he simply changes to a new target when blocked from another, I think it's logical to implement a lock on his global account to prevent further damage. Kylu 03:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really copyright infringement. The identical camera is not a proof. I call David as terrorist, because he vandalized my user page and my license edit. And then he intimidated me. So you must warn him too. Of course I want to leave Wiimedia, but you must delete all my contributions before. -- Si Gam Acèh 05:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ain't gonna happen. And stop that "terrorist"-bullshit. You're stretching it. Seb az86556 06:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • These cross-wiki edits makes me wonder about his user intentions with Wikimedia [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Also note that the "I have violated other's copyrights" claim arose only after I declined Si Gam Acèh's requests to delete all of the photographs that he's contributed (with the explanation that the free licensing is irrevocable). See commons:File talk:Meuligoe.JPG.
    It's clear that Si Gam Acèh no longer has any intention of positively contributing to the Wikimedia projects (having vowed to "never stop attacking" Wikipedia until his demands are met, and now apparently pursuing legal action), so I support the proposed lock. —David Levy 07:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fact. Those are not my own images and you must delete them. -- Si Gam Acèh 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I would think most religions says that lying is a bad thing. DarkoNeko 13:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
en:Catch-22 here, I think: If we trust that the original claim was truthful, the infringement notice is a lie, so the user is untrustworthy. If the infringement notice is true then the original claim was a lie, and thus the user is untrustworthy. There's no way that I can think of that both claims can be true, but since the infringement notice was posted after attempting a sort of retribution against Wikimedia and could be seen to be "hurting" commons, I'd imagine the latter scenario is true. Kylu 14:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Any user may have his or her religious beliefs, but he or she may not use that as an excuse to vandalize the various Wikipedia's (Note: I added his block on the English Wiki to the above list by Kylu). After several attempts to reason with the user, pointing out that each Wiki (Including ACE) may make its own policy regarding these images, nothing would indicate that Si accepts those policies. If we are now up to a level where the user tries to mark a Wiki for closure arguing that he represents a large group of people, while equally trying to delete images for copyright violations and attacking others editors who try to prevent it, i think we end up with a contributer who is a net negative. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My gut-feeling says support, my brain has me somewhat concerned about producing another sock-knitting factory... nonetheless, all of the above arguments make sense. Seb az86556 17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose because he has stopped the demonstration and bloks are not needed [17] --Juhko 20:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ignorance is no valid reason for (indef?) block. --Juhko 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • He said he quit the protest on the 24th. On the 29th and 30th, he continued his protest on Commons, including giving false information on the origin of the images he uploaded as well as referring to someone undoing this damage as a terrorist. Juhko, he did not quit, he's still going. We can't trust him to stop, anymore. That's why he's facing an account lock. Kylu 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done, as I'd like to give him one last opportunity. See my notice on his talk page. --Erwin 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Don't forget to delete all my contributions after you lock me. -- Si Gam Acèh 04:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • At the moment you are not being locked (see Erwin's note) so even the discussion isn't necessary. Unfortunately however we can't really delete all your edits even if the account was locked because there is a copyright problem. Your edits and anything you add needs to be sourced to YOU and if we delete your individual edits they get sourced to someone else. James (T C) 04:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Whyso "author request" is valid delete reason? --Juhko 04:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Legally once you make the edits the license is irrevocable. It would be disruptive to remove all the edits from one person, and 'author requested' deletion of a perfectly good article (especially with multiple editors) usually won't be done. Prodego talk 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Aye, usually author request is only honored when they are the only contributers and the article or page itself isn't very necessary (for example unused images or draft pages etc). James (T C) 05:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Did I just understand that user asks to be locked? Seb az86556 05:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
See diff=2062999&oldid=2062815, specifically "We never think that a Wikimedia administrator holds a position of government. But we are involved here. So for us, there are only 2 choice. We make a change or we quit. -- Si Gam Acèh 09:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)" - (Combined diffs all by the same author.) Kylu 14:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the continuation of protests I will lock his account. See user page, RfC (both Meta), user page, comment, template (all English Wikipedia) and user page (incubator). --Erwin 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Requests for global permissions

This section has been moved to Steward requests/Global permissions.

See also