Steward requests/Global/2014-01

Requests for global (un)block

Global block for

Status:    Done

Please block this cross-wiki IP spam-bot permanently. See global contribs. Thanks, SVG (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Blocked it for 1 year. Snowolf How can I help? 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism. Blocked in a few wikis.--Rzuwig 20:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done for a few days.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for

Status:    Done

Please unblock this ip. It was opened proxy and vpn-server, now it's closed and can't be used by anyone. --MrDoctorWho (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done good luck with its continued security.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for

Status:    Not done blocked because of open proxy. Please exclude because it have no open proxies. It have closed vpn.--MrDoctorWho (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot exclude a sole ip with ease, wouldn't mind asking a global ipblock exempt? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
As stated above, alternate means to resolve issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block/unblock for

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalbot --Euphydryas (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done, thanks for the report QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Not done

cross wiki spambot. Caustic enema (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What a shitty username! :P INeverCry 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Now stale. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Not done

Sock spambot of globally locked account Special:CentralAuth/Blue Cross Blue Shield NC, see abuselog Also believed to be open proxy. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence of abuse by this IP address.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Done

Cross wiki "vandalism", creating or replacing pages with no content, see this for background. Savhñ 07:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done, thank you for reporting. Snowolf How can I help? 07:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block/unblock for

Status:    Done

Extensive cross-wiki vandalism. Has been blocked 11 times on English Wikipedia Requesting 12 month {{anonblock}}. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done for 5 years. This IP has been blocked so many times on enwiki since 2006 that there's no reason to think that we wouldn't be back here in a year. It is set to anon-only so that any registered users can still edit thru it. Snowolf How can I help? 01:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spamming (blocked and deleted its edits at Thanks, SVG (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 22:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki blatant vandalism, on six projects within the last week, no legitimate activity on that IP. --Abd (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  Comment This is listed as a dynamic IP. A 2 or 3 days block, but TS doesn't help in listing any vandalism. Which projects have been targeted? --M/ (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
global user contributions beta shows
There is a total absence of recent legitimate contributions from that IP, on Wikipedia or anywhere. The most recent legitimate edist I found on Wikipedia were in March, 2013, for 96.238.138.* (.214 was the IP for those edits) There was vandalism on .223 in 06/2013. The single IP could surely be globally blocked for a substantial time with low possibility of collateral damage, and possibly a range could be blocked. (Strangely, .72 did not show up in that display, which makes no sense.) It's been a long time since I dealt with range blocks. --Abd (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done --MF-W 15:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for Rendaneh

Status:    Not done

The block was made by Vituzzu ( The reason given is Open proxy: linode + spam from

Start of block: 22:34, 27 December 2012 
Expiry of block: 22:34, 27 December 2015 

i'm using vpn and proxy because in my country some wikipedia pages are filterd.

This is part of a range block, please seek an IP exemption from the wiki at which you edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  Closed as stale  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for User:

Status:    Not done

The block on these addresses state that there is an open proxy on, but these addresses( have been reassigned to me recently.

The /17 range has been problematic for us, though we have recently amended the block to be a soft block. Please create an account and you should be able to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  Closed as stale  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for

Status:    Not done

The block on these addresses state that they are an open proxy, but they are rather a closed proxy available only to EarthVPN users. -- 01:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The web range is problematic for us due to spambots inhabiting large components. I have made an amendment to the block to make it a soft block, which means that users need to have an account, and to login to edit. 08:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  Closed as stale  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblock IP for user User:Kleines0eichhoernchen

Status:    Not done

My IP adress was blocked by user User:Trijnstel

Start of block: 22:12, 31. Oct. 2013

End of block: 22:12, 31. Oct. 2014

de-userpage: [1]

I'm using VPN ( for all my outgoing traffic and cannot edit any pages. please give me (User:kleines0eichhoernchen) edit rights for this IP-Range. thx. -- 19:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a problematic range due to spambots. I have modified the block so it is a soft block, which requires an account, and to login to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  Closed as stale  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for de:Benutzer:Holzliebhaber 2569

Status:    Not done

After we discussion in November last year and I couldn´t go to the "Schiedsgericht". Please can you unblock my account for this request to this "Schiedsgericht" and then, if this negative you can global block again. Thank you! --Holzliebhaber meta (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The account is also locally blocked on de.wikipedia. Please obtain a local unblock through the ArbCom first as described in de:Wikipedia:SGA#Stellen_einer_Anfrage. --MF-W 22:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
But the last time, when I tried to unblock for a "Schiedsgerichtanfrage", the German users said, I had to make unlock here. Please unblock me, then I ask there, then I make the "Schiedsgerichtanfrage" and then I look for the next ways. --Holzliebhaber meta (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, technically nothing prevents them from unblocking you. Then you can be unlocked so that you can also make use of the unblock and log in. --MF-W 22:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Technically is there no problem, why you can't unblock my account I make the "Schiedsgerichtsanfrage" and then I we see what the "Schiedsgericht" says and work this way. Please. --Holzliebhaber meta (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  Not done Stewards are restricted from operating in autonomous wikis. You will need to get local (deWP) attention for this issue, there is nothing stewards can legitimately do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Done

Inserting nonsense crosswiki. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

don  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for

Status:    Not done

I practiced vandalism in the past, with my account Nmgscp1974, but since it was blocked, in 17th November 2013, I never practiced it again. Today, I wrote some controversial information (with a good reason, not with any intention of being controversial), which was not considered vandalism, and, as I was using another account, my IP was blocked by Ponyo. I've already said that I'll be more accurate in my next contributions (particularly about aviation, Portugal, Portuguese economy, global economy, EU, my home town and Cambodia), if my IP is unblocked, of course. I'd thank you if my good recent behaviour would be taken into account. Thanks for your attention. --Nupest (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your ip does not appear to be globally blocked but rather locally blocked on the English Wikipedia by local administrator en:User:Ponyo. I suggest you pursue enwiki's unblock avenues, namely your talk page over there, the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel or the ticket system which I forget how it works. Snowolf How can I help? 03:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  Closed as nothing to do  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Done

Crosswiki spamming. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Global unlock for Japan Football, FootballLibrary

Status:    Done

I had edited some wikipedia as Japan Football (e.g. nlwiki). In September, global lock request has been submitted, and the lock did not done (Steward requests/Global). However, since that time, I have been unable to log in all wikipedia as Japan Football. So, I create ​​a new account FootballLibrary. Today, when I edited my userpage in Dutch wikipedia, I was blocked for reasons of "sockpuppet of global blocked Japan Football" (nlwiki), and I have been unable to log in all wikipedia as FootballLibrary.

When was Japan Football blocked? Which argument was it blocked by? If it (Japan Football) is not global block by a legitimate argument, I want you to unblocking my account; Japan Football and FootballLibrary. --Football JPN (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the log, it was locked by Vito. I don't think you really have "abused" or intentionally used sockpuppets. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
And now User:Wpedzich has locked your new account for sockpuppetry when you decided to discuss this... strange indeed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Football JPN and Wpedzich: I am not a steward, but would you be okay with a final chance? If you violate any wiki's rules or create more accounts, you will be locked. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

OK for me, just as I stated in the unlock reason: don't overuse too many accounts, which is considered bad behaviour. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 17:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. But I want you to unblock both Japan Football and FootballLibrary. Because I already had to edit as Japan Football in some wikipedia; e.g. Dutch and French. So, I want to edit as Japan Football in these wikipedia. On the other hand, recently, I edited as FootballLibrary in some wikipedia; e.g. Catalan and Afrikaans. So, I want to edit as FootballLibrary in these wikipedia. --Football JPN (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine. Unlocked, however, please note that: (a) you should not use two accounts on the same wiki and (b) I request you put a notice on all wikis you edit that you own both accounts (to be periodically checked) and (c) your usage of these accounts has to be in line with policies of each project. Pundit (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. --Football JPN (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That was such a bright idea, JapanFootball is simply a vandal who went crosswiki. Warned dozens of times on dozens of wikis he always went on having the same behaviour under many nicknames and IPs. Should I expect a successfull appeal from EVW? --Vituzzu (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I was editing follow other user opinion or community. For example, in Dutch, request for deletion (Deel 3) had been submitted, but they were recognized as articles. So, I had continued to create articles. In Italian, in September, I was said, "Please make articles including source." talkpage So, after that, I did so. It was also reported to discussion. On the other hand, When I can not get the understanding of community, I stopped creating articles (e.g. dewiki, plwiki).

I was editing follow the community. However, Vituzzu did global block ignoring the discussion. The block ignoring the community is clearly illegal. --Japan Football (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

When will FootballLibrary be unblocked? --Japan Football (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
FootballLibrary is not unblocked yet. Please unblock FootballLibrary too. --Japan Football (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Please only use one account. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with PiRSquared17, pick one account to use, and use it, especially as that is the expectation from the Wikipedias. What you should do is place a redirect on the alternate addresses that redirects to your account of choice. That should not be an issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to see the watchlist of FootballLibrary. --Japan Football (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well contact operations through a bug asking it to be provided under Site requests. Unlocking is not the route to go. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't think that we want to encourage that route. @Japan Football: we don't get everything that we want. There are consequences of actions, and that would seem to be this one. Time to move on, and stop wanting the moon.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
marking as   Done though npting that it is only partially done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock/block for Magister Mathematicae

Status:    Not done

Long-term abuse. This user had harassed -musical blog- a page where users who criticized his performances in Also abused his privileges as CheckUser, which deserves a lock that has been earned since May 2013, but escaped thanks to his performance as Wikidiva --Analfaburro2 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  Not done lock is not a measure for dealing with an established user see Global lock. Please resolve your issues on the wiki in question.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The above user is an eswiki troll, already blocked indefinitely on that project. Besides, their username is not appropiate, consisting in a bad intentioned joke to a former sysop and 'crat from the Spanish Wikipedia. LlamaAl (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That account was blocked indefinitely two days ago at es.wikipedia, and was blocked indefinitely in May 2013 at en.wikipedia, both for the same reason
Yep, though in cases like this, I am not here to argue with them about it. I direct them to where to ask their questions, mark it {{not done}}, and move on.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for multiple accounts

Status:    Done

Vandalism only account --Zuirdj-Bola (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

self-reported abuse accounts  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for User:대우건설 and his socks

Status:    Done

Long-term sock puppet abuse on Korean Wikipedia. ----레비Revi 04:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for RoadToRio2016

Status:    Done

Seems to be the same user than Steward_requests/Global/2011-08#Global_lock_for_OlympicFan (per edits). See also w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OlympicFan/Archive (though he is not there yet). --Stryn (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Think that we can add previously OlympicFan2016 to the list and they are spamming crosswiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for User:Diegusjaimes

Status:    Done

During the past days a long list of eswiki abuse accounts have been locked, as can be seen here.

However the main user for those accounts remains unlocked: User:Diegusjaimes.

Among the accounts locked you can see that his bot got locked:

  • User:DiegusjaimesBOT

which, as you can see via CentralAuth is a confirmed bot owned by Diegusjaimes which was locally blocked due to its controller being banned from eswiki: [2]

Due to the grave abuse by this user with his sockpuppets, it's an omission not to lock the main account and only block the sockpuppets. es:Magister Mathematicae 05:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the account that just vandalized here (Jaontipedos = Jaonti-fart is a harassig account attacking es:User:Jaontiveros), should be locked as well. es:Magister Mathematicae 05:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Diegusjaimes was globally banned in wikia 5 years ago. Reason: sockpuppetry, vandalism and harassment.

These three sockpuppets say it all:

  • 21:24 3 ene 2014 Barras (Discusión | contribuciones) bloqueó a "Zuirdj-Bola (Discusión | contribuciones)" (desactivada la creación de cuentas) durante un plazo de "para siempre" (cw socking/vandal)
  • 01:10 4 ene 2014 Billinghurst (Discusión | contribuciones) modificó el estado de la cuenta global «User:El Usuario "El bola" es un puutaso@global»: establecido locked; eliminado (none) (Long-term abuse)
  • 01:10 4 ene 2014 Billinghurst (Discusión | contribuciones) modificó el estado de la cuenta global «User:Bola el dictador de la GTE@global»: establecido locked; eliminado (none) (Long-term abuse)

User:Bola actually is a Wikia Staff, and sysop at es.gta.wikia. Bola blocked Diegusjaimes at es.gta.wikia in February 2009, and then across Wikia.

  Done Locked. --Bsadowski1 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Please unlock or show basis per policy. This lock appears to be contrary to lock policy. The user is blocked on only one wiki, eswiki. The account was not being used for cross-wiki disruption, and such locks only affect an account. They will not interdict the abusive account creation that is claimed to be this user, referring to what was the report above, and that was asserted without conclusive evidence, such as checkuser, and even if that were Diegusjaimes, that was transient. This user made 330094 edits on eswiki. I think I might be angry, too, if I'd put in that much work and was banned. I cannot judge that ban, and it's up to eswiki, but tradition has been to require extensive cross-wiki disruption before taking the very serious step of a global lock, which amounts to a global ban. There is a global ban process, and it has not been followed. Please reconsider. --Abd (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have to say this, but will anyway: that Wikia evidence was totally irrelevant, and ancient history. --Abd (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    @Abd: What gave you the idea that stewards follow policy? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Abd, typically we also lock the master account (in this case, Diegusjaimes). I can confirm via CheckUser that DiegusjaimesBOT is indeed a sockpuppet. Do you really want me to unlock a sockpuppeteer and possibly let them vandalize later on? (As they did with other older accounts) --Bsadowski1 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, since you ask, this response would make sense on Wikipedia, as to blocks. It doesn't with global accounts, as to locks. Locking an account has no effect on the ability of a "sockpuppeteer" to "vandalize." It does not prevent new account creation, at all. It does not implement autoblock. If anything, it can increase vandalism, by making it more difficult to detect. It also is widely recognized as a problem with the software, a poor substitute for genuine global blocking of named accounts. Locking is the most intrusive action that can be taken with an account. It prevents a user from accessing their watchlist, from changing their email settings. It's phenomenally rude, in a word. It is appropriate, under present conditions, for extensive cross-wiki spam and vandalism and other major abuse.
I am "community banned" on Wikipedia. Because I'm active on Wikiversity, global login prevents me, routinely, from editing Wikipedia, and autoblock is active. I.e, even if I log out, if I've even looked at Wikipedia while logged in, and recently, I am prevented from editing. Now, suppose I were globally locked. All restriction on editing Wikipedia would disappear. If I wanted to vandalize or POV-push (I don't), whatever is the supposed hazard, I could now do it, losing nothing.
The account Diegusjaimes has not edited anywhere for over a year, and is blocked only on eswiki. User:DiegusjaimesBOT is an obvious disclosed sock (we don't need Checkuser to know that!) and was legitimate, with over 11,000 edits on eswiki, and per the lock request, was only blocked there because Diegusjaimes, with over 300,000 edits, had been blocked, not because of disruptive use of the BOT account (as far as the public record shows). In addition to eswiki, the BOT is only blocked here, a few days ago, the same day of registration (possibly automatic registration). It's not clear to me if this account would have been able to create pages, but might have created revision-deleted edits, but, bottom line, not only is there no major cross-wiki disruption, creating a justification for locking the account, there may not even be minor disruption. Checkuser would only be relevant with regard to a very transient disruption reported previously, here.
An account lock, particularly if it is an action taken against an alleged "master user," is an equivalent of a global ban, and we have a long-standing tradition of not globally banning individuals or locking accounts without extensive cross-wiki abuse. We especially don't lock accounts because of a problem at a single wiki. There is a global ban process, which has not been followed.
The only cross-wiki disruption I've seen alleged here was the creation of abusive user names, on meta. I don't see that checkuser was used then, but, again, a transient event like that, even if confirmed, used to be understood as normal blowing off of steam, unless it became routine and widespread. Notice that Diegusjaimes is not blocked here, and if local policy is followed, would not be blocked, based on evidence that has been presented.
My request, here, was an opportunity for Basadowski to correct an apparent violation of policy and basic global account principles. It's an opportunity for any other steward, or user, for that matter, to look at the global issues. I have no personal interest in Diegusjaimes. I only have a long term concern as to fair treatment of WMF wiki users. If Bsadowsksi had not asked the question, I'd not have responded further here. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Relevant policy Global bans. Guideline: Global locks. Should these be changed? What? --Abd (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@Abd: can I suggest that you go and get a better hobby horse to ride. We are all volunteers here, and here to make good edits to a project. That you stand up for the rights of a crosswiki vandal, who is not making good edits, who is harassing good people, and take to criticise people who are here trying to good edits just demonstrates to me that you are losing the plot. You are not taking about fairness, you are nitpicking. Fairness is the person behind that account NOT vandalising users pages, and having to waste my time undoing that crap. Fairness is about application of the rules so that all users can do good edits within the scope of the project.

The user is not globally banned, those accounts are locked and there is a significant difference. The user behind Diegusjaimes has the right to make good edits, and I will support those rights (in a holistic sense); and when they xwiki vandalise and harass their accounts will be locked, and edits reverted. The user Poetlister is globally banned in all incarnations, that is banned, and he will be locked on sight and is not allowed to make any edits. Does that help to differentiate for you?  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, billinghurst, for your frank acknowledgement that I'm not welcome here. Yes there is a difference, one which can make little practical difference for the user and, obviously, little difference here. "Cross-wiki vandal" is a grossly shallow view of this user, and it wasn't established by clear evidence. It looks like this user is *effectively* banned. Global lock forces the user, if they are going to edit, to create a new account, thus making detection more difficult. Later, I've seen this, it is called "socking." I could write much, but am stopping here, because, it's been clear for a long time, ordinary users are not welcome to monitor and discuss steward actions. The user who commented above has been infinite blocked, by a steward, without discussion or clear warning. I may have need for meta access, because of Wikiversity, and hence I am abandoning my foolish idea that I can otherwise be useful globally. Efforts here are a waste of time. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here:

"Now, I don't know how you can speak from years of experience about blocking policies on Meta but I'm really beginning to find your tone questionable when you start schooling every other admin here on how meta works. I am not happy with your general lack of good faith and your accusative tones towards several long-standing community members here and my friends. Theo10011 20:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)"

And if you're still confused, replace "admin" with "steward" and "blocking" with "locking". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Errata corrige: the plotter is a meta sysop. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
No error. And no "plot" was alleged. Vituzzu is a meta sysop and a steward. --Abd (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for User:대우건설 and his socks (2)

Status:    Done

Same sock that requested above by Revi. Long-term sock puppet abuse on Korean Wikipedia. --DangSunM (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Trijnsteltalk 16:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for GeorgeVazquez

Status:    Done

NTSAMR TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done--Vituzzu (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for EbonyGuthrie

Status:    Done

Same reason as above. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done, QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for FabianLuisini

Status:    Done

Spambot. Érico Wouters msg 15:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done, QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Dmoreno1992

Status:    Done

Vandalism only account, already blocked on 4 wikis ([3], [4], [5], [6]). Thanks, XenonX3 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 13:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for LWNNellyazltgx

Status:    Done

Spambot. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for FredericEverett

Status:    Done

Spambot TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for AprilDenman

Status:    Done

NTSAMR TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for LeonelRiegel

Status:    Done
  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for BrittanyPacheco

Status:    Done

As above. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for Michaelrandolph

Status:    Done

Spam-only account. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, --M/ (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Special:CentralAuth/Unypoly's sock

Status:    Done

LTA since 2006. Regards, --레비Revi 09:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

All   Done, thank you. --M/ (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Minhhanh5

Status:    Not done

Vandalism only account, inserting nonsense into various pages. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • This account is not a legitimate target for global lock, based on the above report. There is a one-month block on one wiki only, Commons, and there are only contributions, as far as I can see, on two wikis, Commons and here. The Commons block was based on a warning issued and a block the same day, for inappropriate contributions, which on many wikis, including meta, would result in a warning, not a block. The meta contributions could indeed be consistent with test edits from a clueless newbie. Please follow global lock policy and only globally lock for clear cross-wiki abuse. I will warn the user here. --Abd (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  Comment (conflicted) This editor just appears to be do some testing or nonsense just on meta wiki, I did not find nor warning, nor any help template. --M/ (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
User warned on talk page here. All edits here were creating pages that have been deleted. This may have happened on other wikis. No other wikis have warnings, there is one deletion notice on Commons, no warning of possible block/lock anywhere, until now, here. --Abd (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  Not done, unnecessary. --M/ (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for ابوجمال الدين

Status:    Done

Spam-only account that keeps spamming over weeks in multiple wikis ("(pool) cleaning service"). Thanks and regards, SVG (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done, crosswiki spambot. Thanks for the report. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for MariettaYJM

Status:    Done

Spambot, see abuse log entry. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for MargaritaHardee

Status:    Done

Spambots. Érico Wouters msg 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Nasrialibarre

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spamming for months. SVG (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 22:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for JacksonGbv

Status:    Done

NTSAMR hit filter TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

TY, --M/ (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Kreg Jig Screws

Status:    Done

Spambot, see [7] and [8]. Thanks in advance, XenonX3 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 23:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Anastasifuneral

Status:    Done

Spambots. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

done --Melos (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for M1abacada

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism, refer to user contributions on enwiki and zh-yuewiki for details. --William915 (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

done  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Savannah21

Status:    Done

Spambots. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Kalkhidir

Status:    Done

Inserting spam link across multiple wikis. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for RenateCoppola

Status:    Done

Spambots hit the abusefilters, see here for example. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Done x 3, thank you. --M/ (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for es.wikiquote LTA

Status:    Done

Please oversight and lock this account created to harrass an eswikiquote editor. See also this page. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for JoieWindham

Status:    Done

Spambots tripped AbuseFilters. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. — T. 17:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Salinikohli

Status:    Done

Spambots. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. — T. 10:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for MJWMagdalena

Status:    Done

NTSAMRs. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. — T. 10:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for FidelGladden

Status:    Done

NTSAMRs again, except for the last two which are specific type of spambots. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Done by QuiteUnusual, thanks again. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for DanielaEisenber

Status:    Done

Spambots. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)