Steward requests/Global/2011-07

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requests for global (un)block

Global unblock user:GlobalEditBot

Status:    Not done

Please unlock this bot because this have to be a mistake, we already have one person doing requests like I do and I asked his permission first. I don't think you can ask somebody to go get a botbit on 644 wikis. The wikis with a strict policy are already being taken care off. You are now locking out a service. Dirt Diver 16:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person doing this is an already quite trusted person. You try to be a new user, why there is already confirmation that you aren't new. You should have known better. There are reasons that local bot approvals exist. Patho edits not with a bot. Actually an account used as bot with the name bot in it can on many projects just be blocked for user name violation. The bot and this new account of you can actually just be seen as a way to bypass your blocks on nlwiki and commons. For the reference, it is confirmed that you are Abigor. You actually play us here on meta and I consider a block of all your accounts here as this is clearly not a way to contribute in any kind to a project. I'm really sad to see that you turned into this. What you are doing here is simply project disruption. Kindly, -Barras 17:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block

Status:    Done

(http) open proxy, I've just blocked the whole /21 on (since it belongs to an hosting service) but at least this ip can be globally blocked. --Vituzzu 18:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Matanya on June, 30; for one year. -- Dferg ☎ talk 11:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block/unblock for

Status:    Not done

On a business trip, connecting to internet through hotel link via my company's VPN line. I'm an engineer researching Ziegler Natta catalysts and found several minor and one major error on page I thought would be quick to fix. Requesting temporary unblock for next few minutes. -- 01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read this. Ruslik 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. -- Dferg ☎ talk 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global unblock for un unknown IP

Status:    Not done

global block — peço desbloqueio para que eu possa contribuir com meu conhecimento para o mundo, obrigado — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porventura (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see you're not globally locked. It is possible that you're using an IP adress which is blocked globally. Could you check which one that is / what message you see? If it's an open proxy, you can request an global ipblockexempt here. Otherwise the IP can probably be unblocked. Please take a look at it. Kind regards, Trijnstel 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the IP, we can't do nothing. -- Dferg ☎ talk 11:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block/unblock for

Status:    Done

This IP address, which is blocked for being an Open Proxy, was assigned to me by my ISP Innove Communications (Globe Broadband), hence it is not an open proxy. :) --Cnuescusa 12:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange is happening here: one steward unblocks then another blocks immediately. Ruslik 14:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again. -- Dferg ☎ talk 11:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block/unblock for

Status:    Done

I've been blocked for Open Proxy, but my IP is from Telefónica España, so it isn't an Open Proxy. Thanks. --Estelada roja.svg TheMrJohannesburg · Parlem-ne! ;)/Talk out! ;) 11:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No parece estar bloqueada. En efecto no es un open proxy pero el único bloqueo que veo activo para esa IP es en cawiki. ¿Qué mensaje de bloqueo le aparece? -- Dferg ☎ talk 11:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Que raro, ya puedo editar... me salía que Shizhao me había bloqueado por Open Proxy. Bueno gracias :) --Estelada roja.svg TheMrJohannesburg · Parlem-ne! ;)/Let's talk! ;) 11:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Un placer. Un saludo, -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit now... If I try to edit in wiki-ca, it apears:

No teniu permís per a modificar aquesta pàgina, pel motiu següent:

La vostra adreça IP ha estat blocada en tots els wikis per l'usuari Shizhao ( El motiu donat és: «Open proxy». El bloqueig té la data d'expiració següent: expira; 12 maig 2012.

En podeu veure i copiar el seu codi:

And in Commons:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Editing from your IP address or IP address range has been disabled on all wikis by Shizhao ( The reason given was "Open proxy".

To request unblock, visit your talk page and add the text {{unblock|global block — REASON}}. Replace "REASON" with the reason for requesting unblock.

Additionally, you may appeal the global block at Steward requests/Global.

The block expires on 12 May 2012 at 12:49.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

Can you unblock me? thanks. --Estelada roja.svg TheMrJohannesburg · Parlem-ne! ;)/Let's talk! ;) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol wait.svg Investigando. ¿No sabrás la IP? Dado que en el mensaje no aparece buscar en el registro puede ser tedioso. Un saludo, -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Hecho - revisé los registros y retiré, que creo que es el que te estaba afectando. A ver si ahora sí... Saludos, -- Dferg ☎ talk 11:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias de nuevo, debía ser esta porque ahora ya puedo :) (cambio el título) --Estelada roja.svg TheMrJohannesburg · Parlem-ne! ;)/Let's talk! ;) 11:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status:    Done

I use this IP to edit pages it could be that I share it with someone else through my ISP, I tried to edit under my logged in username but the IP was still blocked. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Done. -- Dferg ☎ talk 12:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done

IP-address blocked on most language where there is contributions. On many languages there is threats to continue vandalizing when the block is lifted. Please consider a longer global block for this IP-address. -- Tegel (Talk) 15:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One month. -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done

Crosswiki harrassing sysops and vandalism fighters (for example: [1] and this death threat), please block this IP address. --Mathonius 06:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by User:Bsadowski1 for 2 hours. --Bencmq 06:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done

Static IP address used by a long-term crosswiki vandal (known as MS/Lustucri). See Vandalism reports/BogaertB and fr:WP:MS. A sockfarm on that IP has recently been found on frwiki (see the checkuser request). Activity on nlwiki and enwiki also noticed. Thank you, Elfix 14:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global unblock for

Status:    Not done

To request unblock, visit your talk page and add the text {{unblock|global block — Tieng Viet ( is nothing but propaganda of vietcong-vietnamese communist; communist is famous for propaganda, lying, controlling, misleading the Free World, whenever you see red flag and golden star in the middle, it is vietcong flag; Tieng Viet has nothing to do with the vietcong flag, they use Tieng Viet to hide the communist intention like using bait to mislead the Free World. People put this site up under the direction of vietcong regime. Do you want communist taints Wiki with vietcong reqime propaganda? the Tieng Viet topic has nothing to do with ho chi minh, but they put it in the page, is it a strong indication of misleading the general public of Free World? They guard the page around the clock? Down down with the vietcong, down down with the communist, viet cong is the true terrorism to their people for the dictatorship to be in power; vietcong now is selling Viet Land to china to get support from china to stay in power; look at the china flag and vietcong flag, they both have color in red and golden star (s), the vietcong flag is a strong indication of china's dependence state, and china has been tempting to use vietcong to get Vietnam like Tibet, down down with vietcong, down down the traitor, viet cong red flag's, china red flag's are red, they are BLOODY flags, blood of millions of their own people for the reqime to be in power. Tieng Viet page ( is vietcong propaganda to Free World, watch out! down down the bloody flag, down down the bloody flag}} — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done. The IP is blocked as an open proxy. No reason to unblock specified. Jafeluv 20:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism. --Trijnstel 16:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 18:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism. --Trijnstel 18:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 18:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism. --Trijnstel 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done, by PeterSymonds. Trijnstel 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global unblock for

Status:    Not done

I am no vandal but I do proxy all of my http traffic for privacy purposes. Also, the Secular Relgion article links to copyright infringing materials when it could link directly to The Nation. I would have fixed that, but I'm blocked. I see the following message:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from your IP address or IP address range has been disabled on all wikis by Kylu ( The reason given was "Open proxy: "Real Hide IP" software, Linode static alloc". To request unblock, visit your talk page and add the text {{unblock|global block — REASON}}. Replace "REASON" with the reason for requesting unblock. Additionally, you may appeal the global block at Steward requests/Global. The block expires on 24 November 2011 at 13:09. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 May 2011.

The block is anonymous only, so you should create an account. Ruslik 08:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI all globalblocks do prevent account creation. Even if a block is at "anonymous users only" they can't create new accounts. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He admits to using the open proxy for privacy reasons. There's no technical reason the proxy can't be turned off in order to register an account first, then turn it back on if desired. Kylu 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done

Open proxy/web server; already blocked on and --Francisco 00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The open proxy range is Trijnstel 12:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Ruslik 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism (the ia.wikipedia vandal). --Trijnstel 11:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please block him for some while (a couple of days or a week). Thanks in advance. Trijnstel 11:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done, by Matanya (thanks!). Trijnstel 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for

Status:    Done
Globally attacking a user, with gross vandalism, so maybe OS? Savhñ 10:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
blocked, OS should be taken by locals. Matanya 10:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for two vandal IP

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism. See their global contribution. Please stop them. Regards--Bencmq 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for reporting. Jafeluv 13:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for User:

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandal. -- Tegel (Talk) 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ruslik 19:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for User:

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism. May be related to the request above. Striker talk 18:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Jafeluv. Ruslik 19:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for user:

Status:    Done

Cw vandalisms. --Vituzzu 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done--Shizhao 02:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for user:

Status:    Done

Cw vandalisms. Ruy Pugliesi 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done.--Shizhao 02:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Global lock for WikiLinkBot

Status:    Done

Request of its owner, Sumurai8, after abuse of it by the former owner (Abigor). It's a script which is used on IRC and it won't work on Wikipedia. The user page (nl:Gebruiker:WikiLinkBot) can be edited by Sumurai8 and don't have to be logged in. Checkuser performed on nl-wiki and Commons confirmed it was Abigor. --Trijnstel 10:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what policy is the account of my bot locked? This is again a attempt to destroy my wiki carrier. Since the bot didn't break any policy please remove the global block right away. Huib talk Abigor 14:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After some discussion, I've unlocked the bot. The lock (per owner request) was valid, but since Abigor is one of the original bot owners and still wants to use it I see no reason to keep it locked. Note that the bot is still locally blocked on nlwiki -- for that you would need to talk to nlwiki admins. Jafeluv 14:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abigor -WAS- one of the bot owners. Apoo 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jafeluv, as Apoo says, Abigor was the previous owner of the bot, but not anymore. As he abused the wiki-account of WikiLinkBot (it was never used by the current owner - Sumurai8 - nor he will use it in the future) and Sumurai8 didn't agree with that, I would advise a lock. I strongly disagree with an unblock as Sumurai8 does not know the password of it and Abigor does. Please lock it again. Trijnstel 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only a person who knows the password can be considered as an owner of an account. Since Sumurai8 does not know the password he is not an owner, but Abigor is. Ruslik 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sumurai8 is the owner of the IRC account, this does not make him the owner of the Wiki account. And according to policies only one person can edit with a account, so there is or will ever be a deal to give this account to Sumurai8. Huib talk Abigor 07:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for a few accounts

Status:    Done

Long-term crosswiki vandal. Thanks, --Elfix 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the first one which doesn't have SUL. -Barras 09:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Two other accounts: Gasco16, Mucho1. Elfix 13:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FAIZ16. Elfix 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done and done. -Barras 13:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FAIZ91, SANTANA0. Elfix 17:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Locked the two..Yes check.svg Done--Eptalon 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zastava1, Alfaromeo1 & Lada1991, all found by performing a CU on his IP range. Elfix 16:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Matanya 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Paulinho15 and all its sockpuppets

Status:    Done

Abusing multiple accounts cross-wiki (uploaded unfree files and added it to articles cross-wiki, block evasion).[2][3] I think I have them all, though I'm not sure. --Trijnstel 19:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Abigor

Status:    Not done
  • Abigor
  • AbiBot non-sul - needs blocking on commons and well as IP-block-exempt removed as botrights removed; also registered on pnt and ru, blocked already on nl
  • Huib non sul, blocked on meta and nl; en is an unrelated user so no action needed
  • Huib (old)
  • Sterkebak
  • SterkeBak
  • Sterkebot - non-sul blocked on nl and commons; still need local blocks, id, no and sm
  • P.J.L Laurens - non-sul; blocked on nl and commons
  • Delay
  • Delay1
  • Bottleneck - non-sul; blocked on nl and commons, de and en accounts are unrelated
  • Miss-Art
  • Thunderflash
  • WikiLinkBot
  • GlobalEditBot - already locked globally
  • Dirt Diver
  • Serious (cross-wiki) harrassment of sysops and wikipedians after blocks on and meta after vandalism, editwarring, misuse of rights, violating bot policy, privacy violations and more. This morning created a serious privacy violation account on meta which has been locked/hidden as well by stewards. Many checkusers performed to unravel the network of sockpuppets on nl-wiki, commons and meta. Mathonius 07:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Abigor is blocked in many projects, also lost his global rights due to distrust. Although he holds sysop rights in two other projects, but I think lock is necessary to make an end of this. I see no reason to keep an sock-master unlocked. — Tanvir | Talk ] 07:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please start an RFC to discuss this. Any respected user who is proposed for a cross-project block should not be resolved here, and more detailed background on what happened is appropriate for those who can't see the hidden work mentioned above. SJ talk | translate   11:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks in Commons done. But a crat is necessary to remove the bot right. Béria Lima msg 09:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will you consider rehabilitating his victims? Regards, Guido den Broeder 10:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes check.svg Done blocked those that are SUL as above. Victim rehabilitation is a different, unrelated discussion.--Eptalon 15:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference to a stable version detailing the accounts --Eptalon 15:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this lock was a bit too fast, Sj is right. Nemo 16:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← Please see Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Delay. I will be honest, I looked into these accusations a while ago and did in fact find that Abigor = Delay but failed to see any editing overlap or abuse occurring on commons. Tiptoety talk 15:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason stated is "Serious (cross-wiki) harrassment of sysops and wikipedians". Would it be possible to add a few diffs for that claim? --MGA73 17:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have unlocked User:Abigor; this will give the affected user a chance to comment, and permit a more thorough discussion. In the case there is any abuse, the lock may be reinstated. --Eptalon 17:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving other discussion to the RFC. Please continue any discussion there to avoid duplication. SJ talk | translate   15:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done Please, block the user locally if you want; global locks are not used for highly localized accounts. --Millosh 02:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment, the discussion has not ended here yet. So closure is a bit premature imo. Please consider the request open. Btw: what do you mean with "highly localized"? This global lock request is about cross-wiki issues and not just nl-wiki, commons or meta. Regards, Trijnstel 13:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The request is out of scope for global locks. Stewards are not implementing such kind of decisions. We don't have a policy which defines usage of global locks out of regular stewards' tasks; and stewards are blocking just vandals and spammers. If you want global block implementation, you should work on creating new policy. --Millosh 14:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons to request a global lock: "Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects, such as making repeated legal threats, publishing child pornography, or posting private personal information about others which may endanger them". It isn't indicated there for nothing. Mathonius 14:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence has been added during September 2010 by Sj and I don't remember that stewards were discussing about it previously, as well as it is not a policy. Our last common position is that: (1) for any extension of our rights we need to have a clear policy; (2) even then, we are not happy with gathering rights as we don't want to be ultimate instance for everything, because it would be harmful to the community. --Millosh 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our most important rule is that we don't decide, but implement community's will. And, community didn't say anything about giving us the right to judge in the situations like this one is. --Millosh 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Millosh, your statements suggest that you did decide. Furthermore, locks were originally created for such people, and some of the earliest people locked fit Abigor's and Poetlister's actions. This was pointed out by multiple people, including Stewards in private. You also do not speak for anyone but yourself, so please limit yourself to "I" and "me", instead of "we" and such. All Steward discussions about such matters are supposed to be public, so if other stewards wish to speak, they have to post publicly. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Locks were intended for disruptive people who can't be regulated by local blocks. Neither Poetlister, neither Abigor are vandalizing random projects, but whatever they do, they do on a specific small set of projects. If you want to proceed with their blocks, please do that locally. When/if some of them starts with vandalizing random projects to make their point, you can --Millosh 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the background of people who were locked (mostly started by those like Jimbo enacting global locks) was ever about vandals but about cross disruption that was more subtle than just putting cuss words or whatever. You have failed to provide any evidence of what you say, and your comments are contradicted by the primary and original uses of locks upon cross wiki harassers. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am, actually, giving very accurate interpretation of the rules behind stewards' work, as well as the dominant position among stewards. We've discussed pressures on us to go out of the scope a number of times during the past three years and the conclusion was always that we don't want to make this kind of decisions. Last time we discussed about it during Wikimania 2010 and you can see the Rationale inside of the Dispute resolution committee|DRC. --Millosh 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"giving very accurate interpretation of the rules" There is no "rule" as was pointed out in response to Sj. Instead, we have precedent, and Jimbo et al's originating use of locking to get rid of non-vandals before it was used as a vandal fighting tool puts your account of history into doubt. You have also used the word "we" incorrectly when you should have said "I". One Steward cannot speak for any other Stewards per our long term history of things, and all discussions regarding Steward use must be public and not unilaterally. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one of the mentioned users is clear vandal or spammer and decision about their disruptive behavior has to be made. And stewards are not the right address for that kind of decisions. --Millosh 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have regular procedure for such cases, but community or/and the Board should define the rules. And, besides all of that, I don't think that any sane global ArbCom would globally block persons who are editing particular wikis and who are disruptive just there. --Millosh 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the request is closed as not done please de-lock all the accounts. Huib talk Abigor 20:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please don't do anything hastilly, I'd strongly suggest to wait untill the CheckUsers have spoken (see here). Silver Spoon 20:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose? Its already closed for the second time. Huib talk Abigor 20:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's closed, and you still want something done. I'm opposing the thing you want done. Just wait a few days for the CU's to respond. Silver Spoon 20:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In those cases I am limiting my actions on obvious cases of out of scope actions, which were the product of pressure made on other stewards. That means that I won't deal with bots for sure. In relation to your other accounts, I would have to analyze all of them particularly. And I am presently at vacations. That means if no other steward is willing to take this issue, I will do that slowly. --Millosh 21:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you claimed above, stewards do not decide but are dictated to. By saying that the Stewards acted under "pressure" and that you are undoing it, you have admitted to deciding and violating Steward conduct policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try :) I almost started to write reply :P --Millosh 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really serious matter and joke replies like the above are really uncalled for. You acted unilaterally and overstepped your authority. You also violated Steward rules by making a decision while obfuscating the matter. Locks were originally designed for this, but in your rewritten history you deny their original relationship with Jimbo. Such an action suggests a personal bias, which I suggest Sj also consider (as Stewards aren't supposed to be biased, remember, we decide, not you). Locks are designed to protect the WMF pages, and it seems that the only argument you have is "neener neener" at the WMF. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Locks were not designed for disputes like this one is, but for dealing with vandals and spammers on numerous wikis at once. Policy explicitly says the next:

Stewards should not override consensus, such as whether or not a user should be promoted. Their task is to implement valid community consensus within the bounds of the Foundation's goals. If there are any doubts as to whether or not an action should be performed, stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it.

The fact is also that Meta community is not the proper one for the decision to block a user out of Meta and that editor has to be extraordinary disruptive to consider that there is a need for immediate action based on emergency situation. --Millosh 04:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Locks were not designed for disputes " To the contrary, Locks were designed to allow Jimbo to stop people like Gregory Kohs, Moulton, etc., who were the original intended target for these locks. This was pointed out multiple times. You have tried to substitute a novel approach to Locks that lacks their historic origins without any consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some other information, please present it. Otherwise I would consider your comments as trolling and I will remind you that I am a Meta admin as well, in which capacity I can decide that your behavior is disruptive. --Millosh 04:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already asked Fr33kman to talk to you about statements like the above, which are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global unlock for Poetlister

Status:    Done

Matanya globally locked Poetlister and other former accounts, citing cross-wiki abuse: Abusing multiple accounts. Because Poetlister is a productive user in good standing at Wikiversity, I requested Matanya to explain this lock here on User talk:Matanya. Matanya seemed more comfortable if I request unlock here. I have seen nothing recently from Poetlister that would call for a global lock, so why the lock appeared at this time remains a mystery. Please unlock. Thanks. --Abd 01:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment Requests for comment/Poetlister and Cato is relevant to this request. Foundation staff members were involved in the decision (see section) to perform the global lock, so it may be a wise decision to consult them regarding any potential modifications to the lock status. Kylu 01:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC and the "section" is almost three years old, and did not come to a "decision" -- Poetlister/etc was not locked then, and concern was mostly over checkuser access as Cato --, so how is it relevant to last month's action, which was new? Matanya was asked about the decision and did not mention "foundation staff members," but wrote, "The reason of this lock was vandal account cleaning, in which I found those accounts and reviwed there contributions. I saw no harm locking them, and I'm not sure I was wrong." This response and that of Kylu leave even more mystery. Vandalism? Poetlister and his socks were always good contributors, concerns arose for other reasons. If this was a Foundation request, then this should be openly disclosed. Otherwise we will waste time barking up the wrong tree. --Abd 12:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wary of the new calls to lock poetlister, since that 2008 RFC didn't conclude that he should be blocked everywhere. So I wasted a few hours looking into this history.

  • The RFC in 2008 should have been updated to clearly note PL's attempts at identity theft -- using photographs of others without their permission, to create fake profiles for his socks. He continued to do this, putting the photographs back up on various userpages, even after being discovered the first time (with one of the people whose photographs they were expressly calling for them to be removed).
  • Somewhere we should note, here in this discussion of not via RFC, a decisions about whether to globally lock PL. The account should just be locked because someone else suggested it in the past -- that's a global decision that has not in fact been made [save by Matanya above]. I can see arguments for locking the account, or globally banning PL (something not well defined yet) -- I have little sympathy for people repeatedly abusing the personality rights of others. But this hasn't happened yet.
  • We should let people involved in the 2008 RFC know that the result of that discussion is now being considered for extension to a global lock.

Kylu notes that Foundation staff were involved in the discussion in 2008. That's a good point, and as with most community matters imo the input of staff and all other community members is warmly welcome. We should be sure the same people are aware of the reprise, though I see no need to treat staff differently from other interested participants here. SJ talk | translate   19:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm aware of the problems found in 2008 and think that alone would warrant a ban. But additionally, I know that there are conduct concerns more recent than 2008. See an incident at English Wikisource where Poetlister was playing his usual games with the community. In this December 2010 instance he manipulated some administrators into letting him start a new account, then behind the scene was carrying on his same pattern of pretending to be several female editors, and a male editor who was wrongly charged with socking. It came to a head when he lied in the RFA by saying that he was a new user. Ultimately he was indefinitely blocked on Wikisource. [4] He also violated his restrictions on English Wikiquote several times in 2010 by starting new accounts]. See [5] and [6]. There have been other problems with Poetlister sending emails through the WMF servers on the various wikis where he starts accounts. IIRC, this includes sending problematic emails from accounts on English WV. Additionally, he has cause conflicts between several checkusers on different wikis because he plays one person against the other. This is most disheartening to me because I have watched him do this repeatedly for over 5 years now. So, I support having his accounts locked and for him to be considered banned on all WMF wikis. I can't in good conscience not comment about this because I feel that he is someone who does true harm to Wikimedia communities through his deception. FloNight 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence of recent misbehavior. His behavior is being framed in a highly negative way. He asked for permission to start a new account, this becomes "he manipulated some administrators." If some checkusers disagree, he caused it because "he plays one person against the other." If FloNight has some evidence to back what she wrote about "accounts on English WV," I'd love to know. If it's anything recent, there you go. --Abd 22:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user was actively circumventing a WQ editing ban last year. Flo, thank you for your comment -- can you include links to where he was still pretending to be other editors? SJ talk | translate   01:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poetlister has socked on multiple Wikis with multiple emails to multiple users coming from each Wiki pretending to be various characters of his that pretend to not be him. I have had 6 of said emails/characters/socks contact me from Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons, and Wikiversity all over the past 3 years trying to get information on various things. Many of these socks have contacted me in overlapping times. He has made multiple attempts to use the multiple names to harass others, get admin privileges, CU privileges, etc. He has abused email on multiple wikis, socks on multiple wikis, and other major problems. This has happened over a 3 year period and when it appears he isn't doing it it is normally revealed that he was doing it on different names to different people. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Lock was out of scope. Block user locally if you want. --Millosh 02:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with millosh that this is out of scope for the locking policy not a use covered in the description of global locks. I updated the global bans policy draft that Steven Walling and others have been working on - that draft definition covers cases like this. I propose converting this section into an RFC for a global ban on editing by Poetlister. If there is community consensus (for which discussion we should notify wikiversity), it can be implemented. SJ talk | translate   05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense if there is a current global problem, not merely an old one. Otherwise this would only waste time. The Poetlister account is only editing Wikiversity. There appears to have been no problem when the global lock was set, other than a certain body of users who are dead set against Poetlister editing anything WMF, even helpfully and non-disruptively, and who discussed this off-wiki. If Poetlister is locked, eventually this user may simply decide to sock again, the very behavior that we seem to want to prevent! And then more time would be wasted identifying the socks. Isn't the Poetlister we can see safer than the one we can't see? Indeed, doesn't an acknowledged account, openly used, make it easier to identify socks, should he be socking somewhere? --Abd 18:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SJ: there's no locking policy in effect. Please don't refer to guides or proposals as policies because it's confusing even for us. Not commenting in this request, tho. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct. The page describing global locks describes a different use case, however. We should update it to note that locks are also used for now to carry out bans. SJ talk | translate   17:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC on a global ban for this user has been opened. SJ talk | translate   17:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global unlock for GlobalEditBot

Status:    Not done

Please unlock this bot because there is no policy yet saying that a global bot needs to have global flags everywhere. Currently there are other global bots that are accepted to run without flags on all wiki's (like I see no reason why there would be reason to let this bot run with 700 flags and other bots run without flags. I will take care for the flags where needed but therefor I need to run 50 edits bedore I can request. Because of the lock Toolserver access is also revoked, when the lock is removed I hope toolserver access can be restored also. --Huib talk Abigor 12:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of edits are you going to perform with this account? Ruslik 13:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was used to help Pathos out with creating global userpages on reqeust. Huib talk Abigor 13:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The account is currently blocked on 10 wikis. How are you going to help him in these circumstances? Ruslik 13:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The account is blocked on 4 wiki's where its under discussion about the permission to run the bot. But the global lock should be removed before discussing it futher. Other wiki's is are blocks done after the request here to lock all my accounts, will work it out there. First priority is the global lock. Second priority is the local blocks. Huib talk Abigor 13:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abigor, the bot account is indeed blocked on 10 wikis. I know this can be frustrating, since it becomes circular. However, bots require approval, and I assume that a bot acting globally, as your bot was, requires some kind of global approval. If you gain approval here, the bot can be unlocked, I'm sure, then it would be up to local wikis to block or unblock. The RfC could be that process, though everyone you ever offended may show up, and once you fall from grace, every action may be scrutinized by hostile eyes. Yes. It sucks. But at least you are unblocked here, and unlocked globally, so you can work on approval. I suggest being very careful, your argument above looks misleading even if it was not so intended. --Abd 14:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a difference between bots... one needs permission and the other don't? There is only a globalbit for interwiki's bots so again, please point a policy out that supports this? Huib talk Abigor 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment: Having recently unlocked User:WikiLinkBot only to see it locked again four days later, I would prefer to wait until Requests for comment/Abigor reaches a conclusion before unlocking the bot account. Jafeluv 13:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RFC can stay open for years, Cuz of this lock my toolserver access is revoked, when the lock is removed I guess they can regrant my access there. Huib talk Abigor 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but it does make sense to wait for the RFC and #Global_lock_for_Abigor. --Erwin 13:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why was your toolserver access revoked? SJ talk | translate   19:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For running a global bot without permission wich resulted in a global lock. Huib talk Abigor 19:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not done due to the user being indefinitely blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global unlock for CaliforniaAliBaba

Status:    Done

I am the editor in question. Locked by Shizhao on 8 July [7]. Reason was "long-term abuse". I am an editor in good standing at enwiki since 2006. Shizhao seems to have lumped me in with a bunch of Nipponese Dog Calvero socks by mistake [8]. I noted earlier [9] that German Wikipedia had mistakenly listed me as a vandal (apparentlky because someone over there imported the Peter Nguyen article history from enwiki, didn't bother reading it, then reported everyone listed in it as a Nipponese Dog Calvero-related vandal). I presume some screwup of the same sort has happened again ... 04:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Sêêwôlftrölle

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandal. His contribs should be oversighted. Regards --Hercule 21:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Fayoma and his sockpuppets

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki abuse. See also here, here and here; the other sockpuppets are already locked afaik. --Trijnstel 11:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 11:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for JoseManuelRuizJorge

Status:    Done

cross-wiki spam --Schniggendiller 15:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 15:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Chocknulls

Status:    Done

cross-wiki vandalism by de:User:Edgar von Webern, oversight needed --Schniggendiller 06:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for reporting. Jafeluv 07:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Navvlinwiki

Status:    Done

Impersonating en:User:NawlinWiki... and vandalizing different wikis. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also found another sock. -Barras 17:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on enwiki

Status:    Done

Long-term abuse. Reaper Eternal 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all locked, no need for OS. Matanya 12:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I had not known they were already locked. That was fast. Reaper Eternal 12:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the compliment. Matanya 12:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You missed two:

which are obvious troll accounts of the same user created to harass User:Closedmouth. Thanks! Reaper Eternal 13:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Fritzerl Lindner

Status:    Done

cross-wiki vandalism (Edgar vonm Webern), oversight needed --Schniggendiller 12:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 13:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Bruggia

Status:    Done

Already blocked in de-WP & ru-WP, a ru-WP sysop noted here that this is a successor of multiple other accounts who are locked globally. I agree, please lock this one, too. Greetings --Schniggendiller 15:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, is one of the sockpuppets of cross-wiki vandal Olha, see this file for more information. Trijnstel 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ruslik 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Alexander Tollhäusle

Status:    Done

cross--wiki vandalism by Edgar von Webern --Schniggendiller 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Wpedzich. Ruslik 19:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Ckeller mit CK

Status:    Done

cross-wiki vandalism (Edgar vonm Webern), oversight needed on eewiki and kawiki. Toto Azéro follow the guide ! 19:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ruslik 19:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for FAIZGUEVARA related accounts

Status:    Done

Follow-up on this request. Elfix 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 18:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Asian tuntiij

Status:    Done

Currently vandalizing fi.wiktionary.[10] Already blocked indefinitely on fi.wikipedia and fi.wikibooks.[11] --Jisis 14:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Mj7thjk

Status:    Done

Edgar von Webern does, what he usually does since 2007, please lock & hide --Schniggendiller 19:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 19:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Sovietski2001

Status:    Done
Yes check.svg Done. Matanya 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Mj7thvgrdvgfjk

Status:    Done

cross-wiki vandalism (Edgar vonm Webern), oversight needed. Toto Azéro follow the guide ! 07:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done, by User:PeterSymonds. Addihockey10 07:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Mj7taahvgrTANDdvgfjk

Status:    Done

Edgar von Webern does, what he usually does since 2007 (!): cross-wiki vandalism --Schniggendiller 12:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Tu^ndund

Status:    Done

Edgar von Webern does, what he usually does since 2007 (!): cross-wiki vandalism --Schniggendiller 14:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Question: the edits of Tu^ndund on ee-wiki are not oversighted yet, as it seems. Is there a steward available who wants to do that? Trijnstel 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Martinoei

Status:    Not done
  • Martinoei
  • For the following reasons:
    • Exposed the IP addresses of some wikipedians in his own blog which caused personal attacks in some BBS boards. See [12]
    • Exposed the content of discussion between several wikipedians in skype group chatting room (he was not in that room) which caused personal attacks in some BBS boards. See [13]
    • Offwiki canvassing for steward confirmation/RFA in meta-wiki/zh-wiki. See [14],[15]
    • Personal attacks and threats of several wikipedians, see [16] etc--Demigod 04:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    X mark.svg Not done, as the account is not unified. If the user is causing problems, simply block them locally. Jafeluv 06:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone is abusing the steward request power for political struggle. Martinoei 20:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This user used legal threats to threated wikipedian,and insulted other wikipedians over wordpress, see here and here.--Edouardlicn 05:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Meep-o-sheep" vandal

Status:    Not done

Obvious socks of the "Meep-o-sheep" vandal/troll. Reaper Eternal 18:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like him. I'll ask the expert. Matanya 18:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The expert said "no, they aren't" so, X mark.svg Not done. -- Dferg ☎ talk 20:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock/hiding for several offensive accounts

Status:    Done

Roughly means someone is now dead. Directed at User:Πrate (百樂兔) and User:Sysywjel (蘋果派)

Offensive towards User:Shizhao. Please consider locking and hiding. Regards--Bencmq 09:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ruslik 18:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Jztbh jki8u7jkllo

Status:    Done

cross-wiki vandalism, oversight needed --Schniggendiller 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locked global account and removed an edit from eewiki falling under OS§2, 4. As dewiki has local oversighters if there's anything to remove see de:Wikipedia:Oversight/Kontakt. Thanks for the report. -- Dferg ☎ talk 17:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Unit-78b

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism by Edgar von Webern --Schniggendiller 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Pizzaiula

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism by Edgar von Webern, please hide edit in ee-WP --Schniggendiller 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock/hiding for several offensive accounts

Status:    Done

w:zh:User_talk:Bencmq#User:KaurJmeb --UAL55 07:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done by steward Matanya. fr33kman 09:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Global ban for Poetlister

Status:    Done


I request a global ban for poetlister pursuant to the request via email by Doc Glasgow, the discussion above, and a review of the situation. While we don't have a formal global ban policy in place, we have dealt with such cases in the past via RFC.

Until global blocking becomes technically possible, a ban would be carried out by a lock, and a social understanding (as with local bans) that the user is not welcome to use any account now or in the future. SJ talk | translate   12:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed. The RfC should at least be closed first! This should involve, as well, consideration of possible disruption on a local project that may not take this well. This is a drastic extension of meta practice and procedure, which should be considered before implementing this new process. Only one project is affected, the user is only editing Wikiversity, normally global locks are not even considered for alleged single project problems, but there is no problem at Wikiversity, the RfC is based on activity at other projects, from long ago, nothing recent has been alleged. The only comments from active Wikiversity users are either against the ban or are formally neutral (SB_Johnny, 'crat there), but opposed to the ban per se, as improper to even ask here.
  • This request is an abuse of meta as a mechanism to control an individual project. The obviously unpopular user is long blocked here, has not been notified, and has no opportunity to comment in his own defense. This is the meta coordinating wiki, which is intended to serve the individual wikis, not to control them. Global locks are normally issued to prevent people from using SUL accounts for efficient spamming or vandalism, to address massive cross-wiki problems. --Abd 00:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Poetlister and I were surprised to find him not blocked here. He was subsequently notified. Normal notification of a process is immediate, so that the user may respond at the beginning and then most comments benefit from having seen the user's response. This was quite late, the notice was placed by Sj at 17:46, 10 July 2011. See the RfC at that point. I don't blame Poetlister for not showing up. The RfC is beating a long-dead horse, behavior more than a year old (with the more recent Wikisource allegations, about six months old, being only based on the Longfellow account being outed, with no actual Longfellow misbehavior shown) --Abd 14:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know if this is a voting page? ... but for the record I second this comment. Poetlister is editing en.wikiversity and I feel it's unfair to make a decision for the Wikiversitarians (?). At least notify Wikiversity's community of the decision, since it is likely to impact them a little bit. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tempo: no, this is not a voting page. The RFC will be closed first; it is listed on this page in the context of the unlock request that was previously just above it. Wikiversity was notified of the RFC before anyone commented on it here on Meta. Poetlister has been notified, and has never been blocked on Meta. He is welcome to comment here, as RFC subjects generally are, and the Response section of RFC's are designed for such comments. SJ talk | translate   17:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done fr33kman 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock/unlock for Multiple users

Status:    Done

Solicitudes de verificación de usuarios @eswiki + SPI case @enwiki. Abusing Multiple Accounts. Pablozeta is the master. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Matanya 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Asdfhjiklo

Status:    Done

Vandalism-only account. Is already blocked indef on the English Wikipedia. --Trijnstel 19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Eina spiald fols and Buggymatch

Status:    Done

Vandalism-only accounts (Edgar von Webern again). Please lock them and oversight the edits where it's not done yet. --Trijnstel 10:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done --Melos 11:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for MonoRelojerobot and Botjedimasterbot

Status:    Done

Vandalism-only accounts. New socks of Alberto Emilio Lopez Viñals. --Trijnstel 10:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done --Melos 10:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global lock for Lead India Publishers Association

Status:    Done

Spam-only account. Is already blocked indef on Meta and did the same things on Commons. --Trijnstel 13:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik 15:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global block for VUGD

Status:    Done

This user sent me the following e-mail: "Don't write in my talk page on If you write again, I will kill you.". And user has made many vandal edits on no-wiki and fi-wiki, as you see in user talk page on lv-wiki. --Stryn 14:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The account VUGD is already locked. Laaknor locked him today on 09:53 (UTC). I don't know if he's still able to send e-mails though. Trijnstel 15:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. He sent it 8 hours ago, so no problem anymore. --Stryn 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have information from a locked user that locks do not disable email. To disable email it is necessary to block the individual accounts, apparently. VUGD is not blocked on --Abd 19:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same user: Ja1. --Stryn 15:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locked by Laaknor. Ruslik 16:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant a global lock for Ja1 please. Trijnstel 16:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done. -- Mentifisto 16:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]