Talk:Global locks/Archives/2020

Reversal of global locks, and a few more questions

Can a global lock be reversed? I am a little confused as it makes it so you can’t log in, how do you appeal without committing sockpuppetry? Also will it be used to enforce a global ban? Also does it put a restriction on READING Wikipedia? Also, how many Wikis have to be abused for it to be considered? As in I was blocked for sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia, but did not do anything else, so I am safe on Meta, right? Gale5050 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a lock can be reversed. To appeal a lock for a non-compromised account, email stewardswikimediaorg; for compromised, email cawikimediaorg. Yes, locks are used to enforce global bans. It does restrict reading WIkipedia if you have .js or .css or .json for reading purposes. As you cannot login to a locked account, those are not available, and cannot be accessed while logged out. Really the number of wikis is discretionary. For a lock, it needs to occur 'cross-wiki except for the following: offensive/abusive usernames, spambots, sockpuppet of a locked account, and compromised accounts generally ignore the amount of wikis. Can I Log In (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please lock my account

Hello, first I registered at Wikivoyage. Second I registered at Wikipedia. Until then, I had no idea, that the registration at a WMF-Wiki ist global, so I accidentally createt a double-account. I would like you to lock, block, delete or what ever this account please. It has not been my intention to have a double-account. --FuchsDuHastDieGansGeliehen (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done there is no value in locking an account, and often can be problematic as someone may think that you are block evading.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

I've noticed that the link in "Accounts that have been global ban (community or foundation)" is not being displayed correctly on the main page, but is showing up properly in this edit request here. Can anyone check out this issue?

Also, is it possible to change the phrase in the same sentence from "global ban" to "globally banned"? It's a minor edit, but works out better grammatically. Hx7 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Done Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Instead of vandalism only account and spam only account, should it be crosswiki vandalism and crosswiki spam?

72.65.120.248 18:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No, why should it? --MF-W 20:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: because if it’s on 1 Wiki we should let them handle it by itself. 72.65.120.248 20:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No, because while spambots usually hit one wiki, there is no requirement to limit or direct the action of stewards. Stewards are able to make their assessments of what to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: there are no vandalbots and not all spammers are spambots. 107.77.225.36 22:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Correctish, but not completely. Which is why the text is as it is. Your suggestions are not an improvement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: how about crosswiki vandalism and crosswiki spam, and spambots? 72.65.120.248 12:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How about we leave it as it is? It is the most appropriate text.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with billinghurst. We already have reasons that cover the cases mentioned above. For me "Spam-only account" or "Vandalism-only account" indirectly imply cross wiki spam / vandalism, althought I must admit that is not always the case. We also have the reason "Cross-wiki abuse" which could cover both terms. Long story short, there is no need to change it. The terms as-is cover the common lock reasons good enough. --Wiki13 (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Question: should the unfortunate passing away of the user certify as a rationale for global blocking?

Being deceased is an accepted rationale for globally locking, as can be seen from the enwiki guideline notes. Should this be listed as a possible reason for locks? Thanks. Eumat114 (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)