Steward requests/Global/2013-08

Requests for global (un)block

Global block for 62.240.163.34

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spambot. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Already done. --MF-W 02:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Global block for Eesther 98

Status:    Not done

Cross-wiki spambot. — ♫♫ Leitoxx    The Police ♪♪ — 16:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be globally blocked. A lock also seems not necessary here as the account is so far active only on one wiki and the only edit is not even clear spam. --MF-W 16:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Global block for 60.168.5.183

Status:    Done

Massive cross-wiki spamming.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done by Matanya, thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unblock for Chaosconst

Status:    Not done

I am a human and a honest person signed in with my account, why can't I edit wikipedia?

Apparently your IP range is from Google Apps has been used for spam. I am not a steward, however, so I cannot unblock it or add an exemption. But, if a steward declines, consider requesting Global IPBE or looking into your internet connection (through Google Apps). PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There should be little to no reason for you to be editing through a Google IP address - this range contains various open proxies.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason why I use a Google IP address is I came from China where you can not use wikipedia fluently without proxies(see w:Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China). Since I have already signed in, which would prove I am a human, Why can't I edit ? The key point here is not the IP but the wikipedia account. Why can't I edit wikipedia after I signed in? You can block the IP, but I think you shouldn't deprive my right of editing wikipedia. You think I am loving connect wikipedia through a proxy? No! Connecting to wikipedia using gateway is the ONLY way for me to use. Block these IP is the only way to avoid damage of wikipedia? you are so weak and so mean!!! Chaosconst (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It's our policy to block open proxies because while they might have legitimate uses, their potential for abuse is too great (to the point where we disable editing from logged-in editors in many cases). Instead of unblocking the IP, your account will probably get global IP block exemption, which you can request at Steward requests/Global permissions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. As Jasper Deng said, we usually give out global IP block exempt to people using open proxies for legitimate reasons (e.g., Great Firewall of China). This will let you use your account even though your IP is globally blocked. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  Not done as the user has applied for a global IP block-exemption. Ruslik (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unblock for 217.13.237.34

Status:    Not done

I have no idea whatsoever why I have been blocked, the reason stated was Open proxy but unless someone installed some open proxy malware on my computer or some other computer on my network I can't understand why. I have asked the blocking administrator who hasn't responded. --217.13.237.34 15:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is anybody there? Did I post this request in the wrong place? 217.13.237.34 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the right place to ask. Stewards (of which I am not one) do not answer all requests immediately, unfortunately. If this is declined, you should ask for Global IPBE. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not in a tremendous hurry, but it puzzles me a bit that I remain blocked despite numerous stewards appearing to be following this page and acting upon other requests. Could it be that the stewards would feel uncomfortable overriding a block applied by another administrator? If so, I may have to wait until the blocking administrator returns. 217.13.237.34 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to unblock this IP address since it is a spam source. Ruslik (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I suppose someone within the same network must have been infected with some sort of spam malware. I'll have a word with the system administrator. Has there been any cases of Wiki(p/m)edia spamming from this address, or just e-mail spam? 217.13.237.34 12:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
As per Rusilik above, the IP address has a history of abuse. You may want to create an account and request Global IPBE at SRGP. -Barras talk 12:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Global block for 68.68.96.0/20

Status:    Done

Web host range (see logs: English: 68.68.96.0/20; Portuguese: 68.68.99.191, 68.68.99.199 68.68.99.223, 68.68.99.245 and 68.68.99.247). --Francisco (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unblock for 69.31.123.194

Status:    Not done

I'd like to request the above IP be unblocked. This is a private Comcast IP address for my residence in California. The block message says we are blocked because of Amazon Web Services and cross wiki spamming. We do no use Amazon Web Services. This is simply a personal Comcast account for home Internet access and my children would like to participate in Wikipedia.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.93.15.33 (talk)

I am not sure for what you are asking, and there is a mess of IP addresses in play. 69.31.123.194 is from above, and not relevant; 50.18.216.174 is an Amazon IP address and it is possible that there may be a Kindle in play here to complicate matters. 74.93.15.33 is a comcast address and not blocked.

We have tried to identify and exclude IP addresses used by Kindles, and just block the problematic servers that spammers have been using within the Amazon clusters, though we can never guarantee that things will be completely static and some adjustment will not be necessary. Some clarification would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not done, per lack of response. Trijnsteltalk 10:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unblock for 50.17.192.249

Status:    Not done

I'd like to request the above IP be unblocked. This is an Amazon EC2 address that I have been using for a few years as a VPN. The block message says we are blocked because of Amazon Web Services and cross wiki spamming. I am the sole user of this IP address, and I do not spam. Its purpose for being there is to provide me a means to access the 'net with my portable devices without exposing my traffice to others on the same WiFi network. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.17.192.249 (talk)

I see servers sitting at the IP address [1]. These IP addresses have been particularly problematic, so we need convincing of the necessity for change. If preferred you can reach us via email at stewards@wikimedia.org if that is a better means to progress this matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  Not done, per Billinghurst. It's not possible for us to remove the block. Trijnsteltalk 10:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unblock for 208.100.40.41

Status:    Not done

I'm a bored NYS government clerk who needs likes to update pages during downtime. I never vandalized any pages. --208.100.40.41 20:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, can you create an account? The IP is blocked as 208.100.0.0/18 (expires on 12 December 2013 at 23:14, anonymous only) ("Legitimate user blocks on /18, convert to anonymous ... (was Open proxy: hosting on steadfast.net"). --MF-W 21:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  Not done, per lack of response. Trijnsteltalk 12:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Global block for 69.22.184.0/24

Status:    Done

Open proxy range (AnchorFree, Inc.) --Francisco (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Some block logs:
Francisco (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Another: 69.22.184.40. Francisco (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  Done Ruslik (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unblock for 68.3.67.81

Status:    Not done

Dear Wikipedia stewards and everyone else, please forgive me when I say this. I seriously do not mean to spam or be a sock puppet, I just try and improve articles and such, but you guys out there see it as vandalism and y'all must be too protective of the site or somethin'. But anyway, I ask to be unblocked and this time, I shall do my best not to let the blocking happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.3.67.81 (talk)

  Not done, you promised on 29 October 2012 too and you continued then as well... impressive global block log btw... Trijnsteltalk 11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unblock for 94.23.251.210

Status:    Locally handled

I appear to be globally blocked again, despite my prior approval and unblock. This address, 94.23.251.210, is a dedicated server that I control. It is not an open proxy, my own access to wikimedia sites is done via an SSH tunnel. I will retain control of this IP for the forseeable future. Previous unblock is documented at my wikipedia talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Draeath I am not sure if I am using this template properly, my apologies. --Draeath (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your IP block exempt on enwiki was removed again. --MF-W 20:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I do not use it all that often, but it remains in control and if possible I would like to remain in the exempted group, if at all possible. Thank you for the quick response MF-W! --Draeath (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to request it on en.wikipedia again I'm afraid, not here on Meta. --MF-W 23:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
IP block exempt regranted by local admin Reaper Eternal. Trijnsteltalk 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Global block for abusers

Status:    Done

Abusers. --Glaisher [talk] 17:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No. 1 done. For no. 2 I couldn't find any edits/abuse in luxo. --MF-W 02:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Global lock/unlock for DanielTom

Status:    Not done

This user has, on at least two occasions, e-mailed non-WMF identified administrators with a copy of a passport not belonging to himself. He made this contact without first asking these administrators (who are not CUs nor OTRS volunteers), and it has potential negative consequences for them to be recipients of it. That the user did this can be confirmed here. Other diffs

Having read and pinged another person on another project after reading w:en:User talk:DanielTom, similar information was also shared on at least one other occasion. A user should not be be explicitly violating another person's privacy by sharing personal documents without consent. I believe this other project identity sharing went through English Wikipedia OTRS. I believe the identity related actions should warrant a global block. --LauraHale (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Laura, you already know the Passport belongs to me. Please retract your falsehood above ("e-mailed non-WMF identified administrators with a copy of a passport not belonging to himself"). The diff you provided, of me, says the exact opposite of what you pretend: "and my Passport". Finally, "this is not the place to ask for locks based on your opinion that someone is disruptive. Global locks are used exclusively against vandalism and spam, not because of content disputes, not because you think that someone deserves to be globally blocked. In such cases, you should ask for local blocks at appropriate places." Someone should close this bad faith request, as it is wasting my time, and I have article edits to do on several projects, including Wikiquote, Portuguese Wikipedia, and Wikisource. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
If Laura could only read, she would have seen in big letters, on the passport, that it is mine, not my brother's. It says there, quite clearly, Daniel Tomé. Laura, please block yourself for personal attacks, and stop spreading lies about other people. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, this was presented to me as evidence that you two are completely separate people and that seemed to be the implication. I have not and will NOT read that e-mail because I have zero desire to be legally responsible for any of the contents in it. Your sharing of personal information in this manner, against express requests not to provide such evidence as it does not support the claim you think you are making, is legally problematic for other contributors. As you have done this on two (possibly three. I am unsure of what was done on Commons) projects, other users need to be protected from you. --LauraHale (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be a childish case of trolling, I'm definitely inclined to lock. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Vituzzu, I have contributed to several wiki projects, including Wikiquote (5500 edits), Wikisource, Commons, Wikipedia, Meta (translating). Locking me would be against policy & absurd. (Where is your evidence of trolling?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Laura, this is a joke. You still have not retracted your lie, above. Please get your facts straight first, before asking for ridiculous blocks, and retract your allegation. The Passport is mine, not my brother's. I don't have access to my brother's passport even if I wanted. He sent, a long time ago, an email to ArbCom with his ID. He gives me permission to do the same. This is a special case where we are twins, and some people (like you) don't believe that we are brothers, so such documents are important to stop people like yourself from lying and attack our real names. Please see OTRS ticket 2013070410010677. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@DanielTom, Do I have access to OTRS? Have I identified with the WMF for OTRS or CU? Given the way the information was presented, after chatting with three other people, the interpretation of your words was you e-mailed me his passport. In either case, even if you have a brother, that does not prove you do not sock puppet. It merely proves you have a brother. --LauraHale (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Laura, your allegation has nothing to do with locks. Why request one? And please provide a diff where "the interpretation of your words was you e-mailed me his passport" (I was always very clear it was my passport). ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
What's more, Laura, my brother doesn't even have a passport. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Given that the above bad faith request was based on an obvious lie, it should be closed, particularly because I have edited constructively on over 10 wikis. Laura isn't going to receive any more personal emails from me, as she already knows that Diogo is my brother, and is going to stop pretending that he isn't. It would be nice if Laura could retract her falsehood, above, but anyway requests for locks are limited to "vandalism and spam", which is clearly not the case here, so I should not be prevented from continuing to edit constructively on other wikis (just on Wikiquote alone, I have 5 581 edits). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
Actually global locks are not limited to "vandalism and spam". Please see Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock. --Glaisher [talk] 15:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was quoting from the above warning. Anyway, these emails were not sent via wiki. Blocking me would not prevent my brother or me from proving our identity to people who keep saying we are lying about being brothers. This information is not new, and was used by people at Commons to unblock me (and I suspect at Wikisource too, where they unblocked my brother). [They didn't use it to block us, or to globally lock me, but to do the exact opposite, which is what should be done.] Local wikis such as Wikiquote, Commons, Wikisource, Portuguese Wikipedia, would not want me unable to keep constructively editing there, just because of this trivial incident, when both my brother and me clearly do not mind posting this information if it will stop people from attacking us. (Did you see OTRS ticket 2013070410010677?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Just one thing I have to say, private or personally identifiable information should never be given to volunteers unless absolutely needed. Giving this information as a means of 'preventing' non-existent attacks is not at all an appropriate reason. Sending this information to the Foundation is the only appropriate usage of personally identifiable/private information. As a side note, I do support the lock per reasons said by Vituzzu. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I provided other evidence that we are brothers before sending the email, but she continued pretending that we were not brothers, so now she doesn't have to anymore. What reasons by Vituzzu? "Trolling"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Vituzzu said that, I agree with that. But note it is childish trolling not regular. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not trolling, John. I don't understand how that would even be a reason for a lock. What do you mean by "childish trolling"? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Laura still hasn't retracted her false accusation above claiming that the passport doesn't belong to me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
There is not to retract there. The fact you stated it is good enough, if Laura did feel she was wrong, she would have done it by now. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you claiming that it isn't wrong to say the passport doesn't belong to me, when it is mine, and my brother doesn't even have a passport? ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@DanielTom: Let me explain: I will not redact. You have put participants at risk by sharing private personal information to non-WMF identified contributors. Do you understand the liability these users, including myself, are at risk for if we open your e-mails? This is a huge, huge, huge problem. You have been told what acceptable evidence is: you chose not to provide it. Instead, you provide evidence that puts contributors at risk of liability, especially because they have not identified to the WMF. I do not care if your brother exists or not. It is is entirely irrelevant to the point. Do you understand why you should be blocked from other projects given the liability you put those contributors at when you engage them in dispute? This liability you create is why I am asking for a global block. If not for your own protection as you think giving this information out is entirely acceptable, for the protection of others. --LauraHale (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Laura, you still have to retract your false suggestion that the passport is not mine. You kept asking me for evidence, and didn't believe we were brothers, so I provided you evidence. What you should do, at best, is explain to me why I should not send such emails again, not to lock me when that would still not prevent me from sending emails. I have already said that there isn't going to be the need for either of us to send any such emails again, and as you know blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. (What would this global lock achieve?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@DanielTom, Please provide the diff that in any way suggests the evidence you are alleged to have provided was the type requested. Please verify my not having been identified to the WMF. Please verify that you understand the liability you presented to other contributors. Please apologize for placing me and others at liability. Please show English Wikinews local policy that blocks are for the reason you state. And since you are claiming this is punitive, please demonstrate through your behavior that you will stop going after anyone who does not comply with your desires. I never, EVER, EVER asked for your passport. At no time EVER do I want that information from a contributor unless there is a really damned good reason, which will be very much relayed to the individual I am requesting it for. This certainly is NOT such a case. --LauraHale (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Laura, my passport was not requested. I didn't say it was. What I said was that you were constantly pretending that Diogo is not my brother. My email to you provided evidence that we are brothers. It was just a quicker way to prove what I was saying, but if you think it was poor judgement on my part, I can only say I didn't think it was at that time. You are correct that you didn't request said evidence. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
A global lock by definition will prevent a user being able to log in their user account. These are meant to be preventative and so far this situation display this being a preventative situation due to trolling and bringing an increased legal liability on users who do not want it with the sharing of private information. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"Trolling"? I am not trolling, John. To those who are worried about "sharing private information", there is no need to, it won't be done again. A warning would be in order, it would seen, but not a global lock which would prevent me from editing wikis where I am actively working. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would ask that people analyse the situation and understand. This is a peculiar case where I have a twin brother, and people don't believe that easily, so they ask for evidence. I didn't know that providing such evidence by email would even be considered as a blockable offense, let alone grounds for global lock. I am actively editing several articles (e.g. [2]), on different wikis, and note how globally locking me would not prevent me from sending emails. I have already said I will not send such emails again. (I didn't know that it was an issue, now I have been warned, so it won't be anymore.) A global lock would be so unneeded and extreme that I find it hard to even express myself. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I am very sorry, that these actions of DanielTom are being interpreted as "childish case of trolling". I know DanielTom as a serious contributor to Wikiquote for nine months, who has trouble adapting to the Wiki administration. He is young and to impulsive in administrative matters, but also very serious and dedicated. From the sideline I have seen him (intentionally and unintentionally) run into bigger administrative problems in the past three months or so. I would be very sorry if he would be globally locked. Instead, it seems to me DanielTom could benefit from a coach/intermediair, who would advice and help him in those matters. -- Mdd (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know that I am running into "bigger administrative problems" recently. I see it as the opposite, given that a series of rather absurd blocks have been reverted in the past month, at Commons and Wikisource, where I have started editing too. My honesty, and that of my brother, by always making public who we are, and using our real names on wiki, has contributed to that. This particular incident has now gotten me blocked indefinitely on Wikinews, but I do not see why a forced block on other wikis, where I actively edit constructively, should be imposed from Meta. Your words about my work at Wikiquote is appreciated, though (and I hope I can continue to work on other wikis as well). ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@ DanielTom, In response to, "but I do not see why a forced block on other wikis, where I actively edit constructively, should be imposed from Meta." Please repeat after me: "Because DanielTom shared private and personal information about himself and possibly his brother. This information sharing is dangerous to DanielTom and creates a liability to other Wikimedia project contributors." Your brother is irrelevant. Your inability to comprehend that you are risking your identity being stolen and making other contributors NOT IDENTIFIED WITH THE WMF liable for preventing your identity getting stolen based on the information you shared with them without their consent is why you should be blocked. --LauraHale (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I have already said I didn't know the distinction between contributors identified with the WMF, and those who aren't. I know now. I also didn't know that sending a private email, not via wiki, could be grounds for a block, let alone a global lock. I have also said that I will not send such emails again. I have learnt my lesson, so to speak, and globally locking me would only be preventing me continuing to improve articles on other wikis. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@DanielTom, it is already three months ago since your administrative participation on Wikipedia here, lead to the first confusion about your identity here. While I have no doubts about your identity, others seem to keep having them, which led us here. I for example would be very pleased if a steward would step in, and once and for all confirm your identity for those who keep having doubts. This would resolve at least one of the causes of confusion. -- Mdd (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Mdd, a steward is not able to confirm the identify of a user, only the Wikimedia Foundation. Also as a side note, a steward has stepped in and is supporting the lock of the user for childish trolling. John F. Lewis (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"Childish trolling" (whatever that means) is not a reason to globally lock someone's account, especially someone who is in good standing on over 10 wikis, constructively editing articles (even here at Meta translating hundreds of pages to Portuguese) and one of the most active content contributors at Wikiquote. You are being unhelpful, John. Go edit some articles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't edit article. I edit items which are Wikidatas version of articles. And sorry if I am being "unhelpful" but that is how I am, correcting people's mistakes and partaking and voicing my suggestions in possibly controversial cases such as this one. Maybe it is because regardless of contrictive edits or whatever you are continuing saying you do, I am entrusted by a communit to have specific roles in addition to the edit, edit and edit part of Wikimedia. So before you call me unhelpful again, consider the fact I help people when they need it. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If by helping people you mean trying to get them globally locked, unable to edit on the many projects they are working on, even revert vandalism, or see the articles which they created on their watchlist, then I can see that... thanks for the help. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I've finished typing the first book of The Lusiads at Wikisource, just minutes ago actually, although it took me a few days. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I really do not like your attitude right now. Assuming my objective is to ge users locked, no. That is the exact opposite. If users do not have. Troublesome pasts or I have been told of a users history I usually defer from supporting or even contributing to lock discussions. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, John. I'm more concerned now with the over 10 local wikis where I edit, which do not want me blocked, but where I could be denied access from Meta. Telling me I'm a "childish troll" is, I'm sorry to say, unhelpful. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
To remind you, this is a lock not block. Also regardless, I would appreciate you not to to call me unhelpful as I may be used by others to back up the reasons to lock you. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Two issues have been raised here. (Disclosure: I have interacted with Daniel at en.wq extensively, including enforcement action.)
  1. I don't think a global lock for "childish trolling" is necessary. This user does have behavioral issues (e.g., he is currently subject to an interaction ban at en.wq[3]), but is also a valuable contributor. I think local wikis are managing the behavioral issues well enough on their own.
  2. The original "outing" issue is less clear in my mind. I will defer to more knowledgeable folks on whether off-wiki transmission of identity papers is something that merits locking someone from on-wiki participation. I notice that on-wiki assertions about real-world identities were not "oversighted" when they appeared in some very prominent locations (including this thread), so the on-wiki outing does not appear to have been regarded as alarming.
The tone of Daniel's participation in this discussion does exhibit the lack of maturity that has been remarked in several venues, but he now appears to have recognized the gravity with which identity papers are regarded. I don't personally feel that preventative locking is necessary at this time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This user's comments on both this page and elsewhere are making me think that he needs to spend some time off-wiki. Accusing people of false accusations, assuming people are out to get you and out to globally lock you makes me think that you don't really think before you speak. Other people have feelings, and the tone and way you've been talking with people here makes me think that you either do not care about other people or you do not care about whether or not what you say impacts other people. It does. Your comments lack maturity, and I don't know how you managed to get sysop/bureaucrat....I would never support you getting either rights, IMHO, especially after what happened here. I think this user would be best served by either getting rid of this discussion so that more drama is averted, or just get it done and over with. I'm of the mind that this user should be globally locked at this point in time. Razorflame 15:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Razorflame, I will just point out that I don't have any sysop/bureaucrat rights (I'm just a regular editor). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  Not done Global locks are only applied to obvious cases of cross-wiki vandalism, spamming or other cross-wiki abuse or to users who are globally banned or whose accounts were compromised. Stewards lack authority to lock anyone in other cases. Ruslik (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Global lock for spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots.Érico Wouters msg 19:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Global lock for spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots. INeverCry 16:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Only one was not locked yet. -Barras talk 21:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
None of them were locked when I posted this. INeverCry 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, never mind then. Guess the one was just fotgotten. -Barras talk 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault. I had checked and locked them all except that one that I needed to check further (because its home was fawiki not Commons); I then got distracted by work and didn't update the status. Sorry! QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Global lock spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots. --Ignacio   (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

All locked. -Barras talk 21:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Global lock spambots

Status:    Done

Spambots. --Ignacio   (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unlock for MerlIwBot

Status:    Done
Done. --MF-W 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Global lock for Sumerrrr32

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki spam --Schniggendiller (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Tegel Vogone talk 15:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Global lock for Nipponese Dog Calvero

Status:    Done

Crosswiki LTA, see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nipponese Dog Calvero - some behaviorally confirmed, some CU confirmed. --Rschen7754 18:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

done. --MF-W 18:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Global lock for Wizzdo

Status:    Done

Cross-wiki vandalism --Schniggendiller (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Global unlock for Newman2

Status:    Not done

I'd like to have my username unlocked so I can log in and be good again. I am sorry for the cross-wiki abuse I have done in the past, and I now know better than that. Please unlock my account so I can merge my accounts back to being logged in and following the policies of Wikimedia. Thanks! If you would like to do this, I can get back on my account and crack or restore the password without email need, because it used a ZillaDog email with parental controls, and now I have a Gmail account.75.86.140.247 15:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  Not done We can not reset your password. --MF-W 13:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you unlock it please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.86.140.247 (talk)

Global lock for Sebb12345678910

Status:    Not done

Spam bot. --Kolega2357 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Not done. Local issue. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Global lock for David Beals

Status:    Done

Crosswiki spamming, see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Beals and Vandalism reports/Archive 5#Hunter Mariner crosswiki vandal. --Rschen7754 03:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done by Snowolf. --Rschen7754 03:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Need the last one locked. --Rschen7754 04:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  Done. Trijnsteltalk 10:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)