Steward requests/Global/2014-04

Requests for global (un)block

Global block for

Status:    Not done

Open proxy range (see local block log on English Wikipedia). See also contributions for an IP of this range ( English, Spanish and Portuguese. --Francisco (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for a global block of that range. There might be a local range block from 2011 on enwiki, but that doesn't make the range an open proxy range. Please provide evidence that this IP range is really an open proxy range. --თოგო (D) 20:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for

Status:    Done

It's a real user. Presumably, it is a mistake.

Мой IP Почему меня заблокировали? Срочно разблокируйте. Беспредел какой-то! --Көпек (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bennylin: one of your blocks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the notif. Bennylin
Lifted. The IP was blocked because at least 9 socks were found registered through this IP. Garons4, Cavari7, Kafuna9, Кантилло, Огнови, Sharaf.g1, МарияВислогузова, Мошкин Василий Борисович, 24junk. Sorry for any inconvenience. Bennylin 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for

Status:    Done

It's not my IP. You are mistaken. And what reason removal?.Ohlumon

@Bennylin: one of yours  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Lifted. Sorry for any inconvenience, but a cross-wiki spammer was found using this IP to make sockpuppets. Bennylin 14:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for 2a01:4f8:b0:7e92::2

Status:    Not done

The error message says: Account creation from IP addresses in the range 2A01:4F8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, which includes your IP address (2a01:4f8:b0:7e92::2), has been blocked by Elockid. I would argue that a /32 netmask on this IPv6 is overly broad. The IP address is with the German hosting provider Hetzner. . --Maba001 (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  Not done, this is a local issue (see w:en:WP:UTRS) --Rschen7754 23:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Global block for spambots

Status:    Done

Cross wiki spam, for example [1] [2] /St1995 23:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for

Status:    Not done

This is a Rackspace IP address. I don't know what the previous owner did, but I took it over shortly after the block was put in place. It's not an open relay. It's not a relay of any kind. The only open ports are 22 and 80.

There is a /16 range block covering the IP. NOP applies since it is a web host so I'd recommend you go to SRGP and request a global IP block exemption to the block. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

bpage not global user--Shizhao (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  Not done place an IPBE request instead. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for User:

Status:    Not done
  • Hi. We are working in a school, with computers and IP's given by Galician-Spanish governement. I am the teacher and I am very surprised about the block, because my students can't work today. I have no idea what was the problem (Cross-wiki abuse? Open proxy?). My knowledge about this kind of IP questions is very limited. It is not more than 24 hours, but I would need to understand what happened to find a solution for the future. Many thanks. --AArizaga (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an example here. There were several cases of vandalism that appear to have led to the block. The block expires tomorrow. If you are the teacher of the class it would be helpful if you could explain to your students that making these kind of edits will lead to this kind of block. @Matanya: placed the block - pinging to see if they are around to review it. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I am not sure how it works but I think it is a common IP for many educational institutions. I am pretty sure it is not a matter of my students. In fact, looking at the bad edition you sent, I think it comes from a school like 200 kilometers away, given a name that appears there. Many thanks again.-- 09:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Expired --Vituzzu (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Global block for‎

Status:    Done
  • China Mobile IP. local block log, see global range blocks for 183.207.x.x.
  • [3][4].
  • Spam/vandalism/trolling. Given what I've been working on, I suspect trolling. Please checkuser, there is some possibility this is a regular user logged out, making some point about "spam." Unlikely that a random spammer would choose my user page, for spam, it's quickly blanked there and not infrequently reported. Abd (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    This looks like it may be "Astrotroll", but the more recent edits seem spammy. It seems to be some sort of proxy, and also a spam source. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    It is an open proxy (maybe that explains why it was used by an LTA(?) and then spambots). As for the specific type of spam, there are two types.I haven't seen the Friend Finder type for a while: Special:Diff/7677117. Lots of IPs have been spamming with the second type (nonsense text) for weeks. Some IPs were gblocked for the same type even today. I believe that, that was an automated bot on your talk page, Abd. And no, it is not unlikely that a random spammer would not spam your talk page. Usually, spambots are programmed to target pages with highest traffic (~50% of spam we receive at the small wikis are on the Main page's TP because Main Page is usually protected and TP is not). Also, it is entirely possible that this was a real user. I'm leaning towards automated spam though. --Glaisher [talk] 17:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. here's the global abusefilter for this type: Special:AbuseFilter/88.
While it's possible, my user page is not high traffic. Wouldn't an "automated bot" run more edits than that, and not return to reassert reverted material immediately, without editing elsewhere? I thought nothing of the first edit, so what? The second, I was ready to ask for a local block, then checked for global activity. None now (so far), but some in the past. (I also looked for open proxy evidence, didn't see it. Rather, mobile phone IP, as I read it. But I'm not expert.) Edits like these two, in general, likely are being done for other purposes than true spam. Maybe they are probing defenses, maybe they are trolling. The nonsense text is in the section header, and was shown in the edit summary. Totally unnecessary to accomplish a promotional purpose. That's a big red Revert Me flag, to awaken any Recent Changes Patroller. This user wants to be seen by those who watch, reverted, and blocked. If this is an SEO, the return on investment would be negligible.
Whether or not it's worthwhile to block this IP is a judgment I leave to the antispam/vandalism experts. If this is identifiable (IP/user agent data) as a regular user, it's a steward call. I'm not naming any suspects, I have only very weak circumstantial evidence. --Abd (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was an open proxy for sure (I'm not an expert on such things), but said it "seems to be some sort of proxy". It is also actively spamming, see [5]. As for the rest of your comment: spambots work in strange ways. We may never know exactly how they choose which pages to edit. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just a spambot, and I've blocked it for a month. It might be part of a larger spammy range, but I wasn't able to find one blocked in a few minutes. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Global block for

Status:    Done

Although this appears to be a dynamic IP address belonging to a public computer (an educational institution), it is solely used for disruptive editing. The edits consist of randomly linking words or first names (example), adding numbers (here, here or here) and sometimes removing useful links (here). The user may also link a name first and then decide to delink it again the next moment (here's another one: linking then delinking). Hundreds of examples could be given. The address is currently blocked for 1 year on enwiki and nlwiki, for 4 months on frwiki, 3 months on itwiki, and has been blocked more than once on the German and Chinese Wikipedias as well. --ErikvanB (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for your report, Erik. I've blocked this IP address for a month. Please let us know if the abuse continues. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I will. Thank you. ErikvanB (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unblock for

Status:    Not done

Contains real users. Convert to softblock.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:488:42:1000:57E6:68D8:0:0 (talk)

No real user in that range except vandals. Contact your ISP if you are affected by this block. -- Tegel (Talk) 17:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Global lock for User:Italiano pero

Status:    Not done

cross wiki troll, blocked on dewiki, se his nonsens edit on itwiki - -jkb- 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  Not done It does not seem to be a cross-wiki problem. Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unlock for User:schoolcraftT

Status:    Not done

Cross-wiki abuse has become a non issue due to not socking in over 4 years. I have been unblocked on enwikk and on enws per my request, and that I will be editing at enWP within conditions set by enWP AC.

While you may think of it as a non-issue, the community does have issues with abuse. Where are you intending to edit? Is it one wiki, or are you considering in multiple wikis? If difficult circumstances are encountered by you, how would you handle them differently on this occasion, compared to last? [Personal comment: I was the blocker of the account at enWS, and subsequently I was the unblocker per request. So I have had some conversations with this individual and had some guarantees about his intended behaviours at enWS.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Per our discussion it wil primarily be on enwikki with expansion o commons in due time, and if a difficult situation dose comes up, it will be addressed in a calm mannor.
I'm inclined to decline. You still says you plan to edit on Commons. Basically you have been locked because you spread you copyvios on many projects, hoping good-faith people would had moved them to Commons. Conditions set by AC don't deal with those crosswiki abuses then they are not enough for an unlock. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
fyi: User has tried to get unbanned multiple times and that has been denied each time because he immediately demonstrates that he would go back to his previous behavior. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) The lock has been placed for very good reasons and I see no reason to allow you to edit again, no matter what single wikis say. We rarely ever unlock crosswiki abusers and we should keep it that way, imo. -Barras talk 10:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The user in question has been active in cross-wiki copyright violations across multiple projects and has, to my knowledge, never admitted to being wrong in their actions. The user was locked a year after their block on the English Wikipedia, after they had gone to multiple projects and run into the exact same issues there. I have no heard anything from the user to suggest change in attitude since then or an admission of having been wrong, both on the copyright issues and on the sockpuppetting. The lock should remain in place to protect other projects from copyright violations. Snowolf How can I help? 14:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
On second check, the user hasn't been unblocked on the English Wikipedia at all, despite their claims made here, and as such their request is based on false pretenses. My interaction with the user over the past month have left me with a clear impression that he has not matured at all in the years since he was locked. His habit of forum shop any decision he doesn't like is as strong as it was years ago and his willingness to bend facts to suit his purpose are still here in this request and in the harassment of admins on IRC in the hope of finding one that doesn't say no. But more than anything, I see nothing in this request that addresses the original reason for locking, which is not the socking, it's the copyright violations, and to my knowledge he has not admitted to any wrong yet. Snowolf How can I help? 14:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would unlock this user only after their unblock both on enwiki and commons. Ruslik (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I oppose an unlock too, for the reasons given above. --Rschen7754 02:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Noting for the record here that SchoolcraftT remains blocked on the English Wikipedia, and that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has declined his appeal for unblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This request is ergo   not done since it was requested with a false reason. --MF-W 02:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, the committee did consider some unblock restrictions and put them to SchoolcraftT. Rather than accept the restrictions, he then contacted a very large number of people asking for an unblock. This led to further information being passed to the committee and we declined the unblock. WormTT 08:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for User:TOTTUS para la vida de hoy

Status:    Done

Possible LTA sock? I'm not sure about their edits but this account is blocked on eswiki and I noticed it currently making edits on enwiki and Commons. BrianMT (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Locked. Thank you. Savhñ 21:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for Azadsp

Status:    Done

All these accounts already blocked on en-wiki, and some if not all are blocked on fr-wiki (where a couple of IPs were blocked as well). They're active on the fa-wiki as well. I just filed an SPI on the English wiki, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1241edit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unlock of JugendstilBikes

Status:    Done

Could this account be unlocked because the "spamming" would not likely to continue? The lock seems to have been done by Ajraddatz based on apparent spamming on their own user page (already deleted). In ticket:2014040510007414, they explained that while the user page edit did include text from an advertisement, it was just a test. They sent the email from the domain so it's not against the local (proposed) username policy. From what I see in their email containing images of bike parts which they plan to contribute to Commons, I believe they would make a good contributor. whym (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The account was locked after creating "spam" userpages on two projects, while having no other beneficial edits. However, if the user is actually here to contribute, then I have no problem unlocking them to do that. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for 1241edit

Status:    Done

Socking on multiple wikis, including English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Farsi Wikipedia. If deemed appropriate, please also run a CheckUser and globally block the underlying IPs. --King of ♠ 22:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Already locked. --Rschen7754 22:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Link: Steward requests/Global/2014-04#Global lock/unlock for Azadsp. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock Foker123

Status:    Done

Global vandalist, who adds this picture to random articles. I hope i'm in the right place. Thanks, Ely1 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for 1adafara

Status:    Done

Confirmed sock of crosswiki vandal 1abacada. See investigation. Jafeluv (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. — TBloemink talk 07:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Bigtitsass555

Status:    Done

Please global block the user after a reason on the German VM. He made a nonsense edit in German and due ones in the English, where he is blocked for a time of indefinite. I don't see any AGF for this user and we haven't support his fun for longer time. Thank you --Ociont (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Locked for crosswiki vandalism and abusive username... QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for BETCOM

Status:    Done

Spam-only account. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Azhar sabri

Status:    Done

Warned on Wikidata,; blocked and deleted on English Wiktionary, English Wikipedia; warned and blocked numerous times on Wikimedia Commons where user continued disruption 8 April 2014 and to enwiki article 11 April 2014, the other day. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for 미씨씨피

Status:    Done

Sock of Unypoly. Curruntly blocked on kowiki and Unlpoly is already locked.--DangSunM (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Done by M7 and me. --MF-W 09:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Ihavetesticularcancer

Status:    Done

Nazi-Bullshit in deWP, vandalism everywhere else; please lock --Schniggendiller (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 13:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for 1rataya and Unkn1abagaha

Status:    Done

xwiki abuse. --GZWDer (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Savhñ 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Johnmarks008

Status:    Done

Viagra spambot, please don't forget to delete his spam pages ([6], [7], [8]). Thanks! XenonX3 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Unypoly's sock

Status:    Done

Sock of Unypoly, confirmed by kowiki local CU Sotiale. Revicomplaint? 14:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Done, thank you.
--M/ (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Kdafljafop

Status:    Done

Cross wiki vandalism. Pages blanked and otherwise vandalized. See . User now blocked on en.wikiversity. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Josenber

Status:    Done

Hair-growth-oil spambot. Thanks in advance! XenonX3 (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for 미주리

Status:    Done

Sock of Unypoly, curruntly blocked at kowiki.--DangSunM (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. The first one was already locked. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for 대한민국토박이

Status:    Not done

Sock of Unypoly again, curruntly blocked at kowiki.--DangSunM (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

야주강 Adding one more. Revicomplaint? 05:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC) (This one is with edit behavior, as he is requesting unblock of Betalph on kowikibooks and asking admin for request unlocking. This matches Revicomplaint? 05:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC))
Please do not lock Daehae, 대한민국토박이. Daehae and 대한민국토박이 are unrelated to me(Unypoly). they are not Sock of Unypoly. 대한민국토박이 is sock of Daehae. I think they are sock of Daiyan, Bhher, Rokescort, Gagena, Master123456, Beautymissy. they didn't abuse act else than Global locks require Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. --야주강 (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Not xwiki, leaving to local wikis, or until they go xwiki. Please stop hunting down every possible account and reporting to stewards, the purpose of lock is to manage xwiki problematic accounts, and then only when they are confirmed as being of the abuser. Management at local wikis is preferred.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unlock for Betalph

Status:    Not done


I was locked because I was blocked in three wiki at that time. Steward requests/Global/2012-09. However, block in two wiki(b:ko: and wikt:ko: was illegally executed. My block in ko.wiktionary was canceled after impeachment and resignation of 아흔. Now, I requested unblock me to Korean wikibooks, Because I didn't abuse sock in kowikibooks and not did disturb act. I did abusing act only ko.wikipedia, not did in other Wikimedia project. 아흔 was impeached at Korean Wikipedia in 2007, and he continuously abuse admin rights in ko.wikibooks and ko.wiktionary. Finally, He was impeached in ko.wiktionary in September 2013 and resigned all admin right in Wikipedia project in September 2013. Global locks require Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now or obviously are otherwise being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock. --야주강 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not just use the current account (야주강) that you are using?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I have just read the post above. Denied. Please go away for a while, you have outstayed your welcome, and your repeated edits are reported here as problematic, and will continue to be locked. If you don't like it, then you should look to your edits and why the requests are made for locks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for 影武者(Kagemusha)/Nipponese Dog Calvero's sockpuppets 20140420

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki LTA.--Lanwi1(Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for DeloresKalb

Status:    Done

The first is a spambot and the second has spammed crosswiki. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Locked both, thanks for reporting. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Global block for Mutter Erde

Status:    Not done

I think, the case is a older one, a time where we haven´t the global block for users. But now, we have this and this user made many problems in the German Wikipedia. By best AGF, this Account doesn´t need any chance to work in the Wikipedia. de:Benutzer:Katharina finished her (I think she is a woman in connection with the username) work for ever, even the account is blocked for a time of indefinite. In the English Wikipedia he is anche block indefinite from Jimbo. I don't think, this user would make this in any Wikipedia project better. In many other project he made some useful works, but his thinks in the two grand is enough, that he show us, he wouldn´t make it better. I don´t know, what de:Benutzer:Elian thought, when he unblock him, the case is for everyone clear, and we don´t support this user. --Olmoj (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC) after a update --Olmoj (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no SUL for the username MutterErde. Please confirm which user you are referring to. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn´t know, that is there an user, whos name are written together. --Olmoj (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Per SULtool, there is no unified account, so we can't lock anything. Individual projects will need to block him as needed. Sorry, Ajraddatz (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unlock for جافيد

Status:    Not done

Reason is this message I got: Your IP address has been blocked on all wikis. The block was made by Billinghurst ( The reason given is Open proxy: abused web host; real users; convert to softblock. Start of block: 05:19، 4 فبراير 2014 Expiry of block: 12:13، 11 مايو 2014 Your current IP address is 5.1. . . Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki.

There is no account lock. From what you have provided, it would appear that I softened an existing block, and the nature of this block is that you need to be logged in to edit. I don't see that we would be looking to remove such a block. I will need to dig to find the specific block as the detail is incomplete.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is a /24, and the narrative is as above. Please login to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Please login to edit?!

At least read the message in your talk page, sir. I put a shot (Shot means photo), but you did not take one a look at it. If I made edits at arwiki & commons, thats because a free vpn I had used which I will not use any more. Thanks & next time read well before making an answer.

--جافيد (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your account is not locked, you should be able to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Pecohuh

Status:    Done

Xwiki vandalism (Geógrafo23 (talk · contribs)). --Alan (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done, thank you — TBloemink talk 08:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Global unlock for User:Augusto De Luca

Status:    Not done

User created 555 user pages over three days, considered a "spambot," for obvious reasons, though detailed analysis shows not a bot. The pages created were not spam, as such, they were each only a link to a single photo from commons:Category:Photographs by Augusto De Luca. That was considered "promotion," though w:Wikipedia:User pages, as an example, allows limited self-promotion on user pages; this could also be considered an introduction to the user and disclosure of conflict-of-interest, efficiently. The user stopped, but the user was locked and the name added to the title blacklist (without being logged), the user then could have been warned on the home wiki and the lock lifted. I requested Vituzzu unlock,[9] but the steward has no edits or logged actions for ten days. Please lift the lock, because it is unnecessary and prevents communication with the user, which could be especially important on Commons. --Abd (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Not doneFor obvious reason should be enough. The play has ended. --M/ (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
If the reasons are obvious, they should be incorporated in policy, especially users should know not to do what Augusto De Luca did. This is a brief request. It's easiest to handle it here. But this is up to the steward community. Thanks, M7. --Abd (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It was not locked as a spambot, but rather as a spam-only account. I agree with this decision. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, my take on the issue is that creating hundreds of pages, all alike, should be considered spam, whether all done on a single wiki, or distributed across hundreds of them. (To me, limited self-promotion means creating, say, a dozen of user pages, across a handful or so of wikis.) I believe that should the person behind that account will ever become interested in contributing to the WMF projects, he or she will probably register one another account, and start anew, anyway. — Ivan Shmakov (dc) 18:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That may be a common view, but it is not covered by any policy, so users have zero notice that this is disallowed. This is a real name account, that was locked, not an anonymous one. Yes, if the photographer Augusto De Luca wants to participate, he could register Randy from Napoli. Could he upload his own photos to Commons? Definitely, this is an example of a user doing something that would routinely be accepted on one wiki, it would not be identified as "spam," but done cross-wiki, rapidly, is sanctioned. We have no policy on this, only defacto procedure, which is not what users would expect if they are unfamiliar with our antispam practices. Now, the real issue here is whether the lock needs to be continued. The account creation and user page creations were done. The title blacklist is in place, and I did not request it be lifted (nor do I plan to do so, it is harmless at worst). Why is the lock continued? --Abd (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the same that happens for external links repeated abuse. This block is a protection for the future and a severe warning for everybody thinking about such a wrong meaning of free and thus won't be lifted. Abusers will definitely not like, and this is what it is really important in a collaborative project. And taking their part might seem quite awkward. --M/ (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock/unlock for five users

Status:    Not done

See User talk:Vituzzu. All these users were inactive when locked. Giulia D'Eboli had cross-wiki edits. She was warned on it.wikipedia about editing re her father, Augusto De Luca, and stopped, edited some more, no problems, no edits after November, 2011. The first four of these were locked as "spam-only accounts" which is clearly incorrect. The last was locked with "cross-wiki promo," which is more correct, but then is not a legitimate lock reason, absent local blocks (which did not exist. There may or may not have been a conflict of interest, but that is routinely handled locally. These users, arguably SPAs, had clean block logs, everywhere, when locked. The locks may cause damage, particularly at Commons, but, as well, these users (and De Luca) would be the people most likely to know if reliable sources exist (perhaps in print) showing the notability of this photographer, which is needed for the wikipedia articles. Please unlock all five. --Abd (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

sameasabove. --M/ (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd hope for a second opinion. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@M7: please look more carefully at this request. It is reasonable and I don't think it should just be dismissed as "obvious". Giulia D'Eboli, for example, had been inactive for years! PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I have looked accurately at this spam case, dating back to its first attempts, and I endorse a full lock for all involved (ab)users. --M/ (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for AlanBotXD

Status:    Done

X-Wiki vandalism-only account. (Geógrafo23) --Alan (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Locked, thanks for reporting. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Firstlast2255

Status:    Done

Spam-only account. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Locked, thanks for reporting. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Drjer

Status:    Done

Vandalism only account. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Spam/vandalism only. --MF-W 21:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Thesplashofamerica

Status:    Done
Cross-Wiki vandal. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for First Soldier

Status:    Not done

Long term abuse on sl Wikipedia and vandalism on Wikidata [10], [11] from Igor Janev. --Kolega2357 (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, this comments do not have anything with Igor Janev! Such accusations are preposterous! Please Kolega2357, behave yourself! You should be ashamed Kolega2357!

P.S. People like Kolega2357, should face serious legal consequences! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

  Not done, edit history does not support an account lock. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Global lock for Museumdisplaycases

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spammer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)