Home

Talk Page

Contributions

My Stats

Archives

Subpages

Email

Archives 2009 2010 2011 2012		2013 2014 2015

Hi Elockid - thought I'd ask what my chances are of getting them EFM right? I've been active over at the false positives page and do look over the requested filters every now and then, and have a pretty decent understanding of regex. Any thoughts? Thanks -- samtar ^whisper 15:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at your request from September, I'd say that there's been improvement and that you're well on your way. Probably though to ensure that no one else opposes your request, I'd follow MusikAnimal's advice and also work on WP:EF/R. For more advanced permissions, not having a need would be seen as hat collecting. So be sure to also put the areas you'd be willing to work on like handling new filter requests, improving current filters, etc. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 18:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Elockid, I'll see if my regex-fu is up to scratch with the current requests Happy New Years! -- samtar ^whisper 19:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Years to you too! Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 21:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elockid: Sorry to bother you again. I've had a look, and drafted up some regex for one, but it seems regex doesn't play as big a part as it seems? Could you point me in the best direction to learn about the rest of the edit filter coding? Thanks again -- samtar ^whisper 19:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format is the place to go for all the info on available conditions. Regex does play a fairly big part though, many filters are simply 'we know a vandal writes this phrase every edit' and writing some regex to catch that text. Sam Walton (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what Sam said. The link that Sam gave is very useful. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 23:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 13:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid. Per a recent guideline RfC, if a filter is switched to disallow a notice should now be posted to WP:EFN (preferably beforehand). I've done that for 743; the RfC didn't get huge input so no worries about not noticing/remembering! Sam Walton (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen that RfC yet. Thanks for the heads up. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 17:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you protected Laurent Tillie from creation. Can you please move Laurent Tillie (volleyball) to Laurent Tillie. Thank you! Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 23:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again :), Thanks for previous time. I have the same question again, can you please move Draft:Evgeny Sivozhelez to Evgeny Sivozhelez. Thank you Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again, please move also Draft:Artem Volvich, to Artem Volvich Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and  Done. Elockid ^{Message me} 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you archive pages? because I want to clean up my talk page but I am not sure if its something only admins can do or? Saturn star (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving is something that everyone can do. It's really simple. There are two ways archive, you can either do it manually or automatically.

To do it manually, you do following:

1) Highlight the sections that you want to archive.

2) Right click or press Ctrl+X (Windows) or Command+X (Mac)

3) If you haven't created an archive page, you can create one and call it something like Archive 1. Paste the sections on the archive page.

4) At the very top, place {{archive}}

5) On your talk page, create a link to your archives. You can use a template like Template:Archive banner.

If you want to do it automatically, you can have a bot do it. There's several to choose from here. For example, if you want to use ClueBot III, just follow the instructions at User:ClueBot III#How to archive your page. That's pretty much it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Elockid ^{Message me} 14:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid, a general question based on your deletion (and priors) of this section: Does WP:Deny command deletion of such sections in their entirety, even including constructive contributions of users without any cause for a complaint? So is it wrong to try an adjusted version without the troll's content like this and if so, why? --KnightMove (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there are constructive comments there, the responses acknowledges them. This in turn would defeat the purpose of denying them recognition since acknowledgement is still a form of encouragement. I wouldn't say that it's necessarily wrong to do an adjusted version per se, but when dealing with trolls, it's generally best practice to remove anything that indicate that we want them here. Elockid ^{Message me} 20:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... if this is consensus here, ok. --KnightMove (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why gave no summary? Is he blocked? Thx. Edit: Ah ok i see he got blocked today. prokaryotes (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a banned troll who has been disrupting this encyclopedia for some time now. Elockid ^{Message me} 16:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the one you were targeting, but based on their talk page request you might want to extend the scope of the block. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and range widened. Elockid ^{Message me} 04:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid, I see that you blocked a series of IP addresses including 178.73.210.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 178.73.210.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 178.73.210.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in December. Presumably the same person has carrying on the disruptive discussion at Talk:Earthquake prediction as 77.238.217.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 77.238.218.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 77.238.213.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). RockMagnetist(talk) 21:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the 178 IP since it was a webhost. In general, webhosts host proxies or other anonymizing services. A blocked user was abusing that range which is why I blocked it. It doesn't appear that the blocked user is the same person as the 178 or 77 IP. I can't find any evidence right now that suggests the 77 IP is hosting any proxy services. Elockid ^{Message me} 13:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the proxy service, but I don't see how they could be different users. Their only contributions are to continue the discussion from the same viewpoint on the same talk page. If you could tell me the userid of the blocked user, I could test this on the sockpuppet site. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response. What I meant was that there was a blocked user who created accounts using the the 178 IP. The blocked user who was creating the accounts has no relation to the person editing Earthquake prediction. They only created accounts and used those accounts to disrupt the project. The person editing Earthquake prediction did not prompt the block and is likely just unfortunate collateral. Elockid ^{Message me} 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O.k., thanks. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism still occurs. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Apologies for the late response. Elockid ^{Message me} 21:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need you to do an immediate checkuser check on this case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anhinhhhd&action=edit&section=1. The users are getting out of control. CLCStudent (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't do much in the way of blocks or preventing more accounts. I thought there was an edit filter to prevent these edits. I'll try to find it. Elockid ^{Message me} 17:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elockid.

Thanks for the reversions on my talk page. Would you consider semi-protecting it for a few days or a week? I find the messages less annoying than the notifications and the time wasted. BTW, in general, I prefer such comments just be left, not reverted, but I certainly didn't mind it in this case.

Thanks,

μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, noted for the future. I'll semi your talk page as soon as I get on my main account. ElofoSho (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ElofoSho, I appreciate it, and would love to know what in the world your username derives from. I am guessing Hebrew, although I have only studied isiZulu and various Indo-European languages. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ilokano and Tagalog? Nevertheless, ElofoSho and Elockid still strike me as Hebraic, for some odd reason. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Philippine based. I never would have thought that my username would sound Hebraic. Ironically, my best friends are Jewish and probably being friends for so long, I might have unconsciously made my names as they are now. Elockid ^{Message me} 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should revoke talk page access for user:2601:803:c402:95f0:dd8e:bb07:dc49:f585. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5DD5:8A07:3172:13EB (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm given them a note. If though they have repeated this behavior, I can revoke it for you. Elockid ^{Message me} 14:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the primary account for 195.177.126.149? You blocked him/her for a year but they have no talkpage. Curro2 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look to see if there was an account editing on the IP. I just noticed the IP was an open proxy and blocked it per WP:No open proxies. At this point, without having done any further investigation, I don't know who's using that address. Elockid ^{Message me} 01:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am using a public WiFi because of an AT&T IP range block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.172.185 (talk • contribs)

This range has had a long history of abuse from more than one user. Several long-term disruptive users have been using the range along with other vandals/disruptive users. This is clearly evident by the block log of the range. I am getting the impression that you think the range blocks all ATT customers. That is not the case here. The block would have been much wider and encompassed a number of other ranges if it did. Actually, a smaller percentage of ATT's overall customers use that range. Yes it may be an inconvenience, but again due to the long-term disruption from this range, a block is necessary. Elockid ^{Message me} 16:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your presence is requested at acc:#164218! :) -- Cheers, Riley 04:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow up ping. :) -- Cheers, Riley 17:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a request only you can handle, as blocking admin. -- Cheers, Riley 02:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
  It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
  -- Cheers, Riley 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why was this article deleted and locked please can you sort out this article its much needed thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Felgate

I have restored the article after a request at REFUND. It was previously deleted at AfD because the Cypriot First Division was not considered fully professional, but it is now accepted in the list at WP:FPL, so the player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. JohnCD (talk)

Hello Elockid, I was wondering if Feeding the Trolls is an acceptable practice for Wikipedia users to use against vandals? This tactic for confronting suspected vandals (including sockputtets) has been frequently exhibited by User:Darkknight2149, which has only stirred the pot and have lead to an increase of serious attacks on his talk page. A clear example of a post by his can be seen by his recent post at the bottom of his talkpage User talk:Darkknight2149. Furthermore, he has specifically threatened users by use of personal messages (even though some changes made by some IPs are constructive) and can't be reasoned with easily. Is his method of dealing with users appropriate for the wikipedia community?

PS: From the edit history of his talkpage, can you cross out those disruptive edits made by some angry users/sockpuppets (like those made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.114.92.231 and other related users) as they are very inappropriate. Thanks! 63.92.232.41 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, @User:63.92.232.41. I wanted to clarify that warning users of the potential consequences of their actions is not "feeding the trolls". I have mostly been unresponsive to the personal attacks. It was only when they kept going that I warned the user that, if it happened again, I would begin a sock investigation. The user did it again, so I'm currently preparing for that Sock investigation.

The whole situation began when I warned the IP-hopping user to stop edit warring on The Empire Strikes Back. The user (who has been blocked for personal attacks in the past) decided to leave me a message saying something along the lines of "Don't mess with my changes, fucker". I reported it, that particular account was blocked for a week, and now the user is using their resources to send non-stop personal attacks.

An example of "feeding the trolls" would be if someone vandalised a page by saying something like "Boba Fett is gay!", and I responded with something like "well, so are you!" when reverting it. I hope this clarified a few things. DarkKnight2149 22:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious activity[edit]

@User:63.92.232.41 After doing some checking, I find it curious that your only contribution to this site (at least with this IP) is this message. I also find it curious that you "coincidentally" left a message about feeding the trolls, something that was mentioned in many of the personal attacks. I have to ask, are you that user? DarkKnight2149 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid, I'm not sure if this is of any interest to you, but here goes: I was at Simple Wikipedia when I noticed IP 72.64.6.79 (New Hampshire; ISP: Fairpoint) had left a pissy note on my talk page, seemingly grousing about something that happened at the English Wikipedia. I checked him out at English, and it looks like the IP is part of a range that you've blocked multiple times.

When I investigated what his beef was with me, I found this note at Simple where he complains to another disruptive user that he didn't like the way I changed "actress" to gender neutral "actor" at April Winchell and that I allegedly threatened to "smack [his] head in the 21st century".

This led me to this reversion of someone who turned out to be a CU confirmed sock of Bigshowandkane64, which will be of some interest to me going forward. (I know that privacy issues don't allow you to confirm any CU link). Anyhow, the same edits were made here from another New Hampshire IP (ISP: Comcast). So I'm bringing it to your attention in case you think another range block is warranted. If not, no biggie. Thanks, take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, ACC has as a CU backlog of 23+ requests as of 20:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC). Any help would be appreciated! -- Cheers, Riley 20:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

the IPv6 range 2001:41D0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 is blocked according to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList.

Can you please whitelist those ipv6 ranges that are specific to OVH ISP activities (http://www.ovhtelecom.fr) :

- 2001:41d0:70::/44 - 2001:41d0:fc00::/38

Regards, Florent

YGM. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this ISP editor is currently not only vandalizing (occasionally) but actively removing maintenance tags from articles (often 3 to 5 a day). I would have simply reported this to Vandalism but I noticed that ISP 24.102.72.189 created 74.102.30.143's talk page shortly before that ISP was blocked. It seems to me that there's some sockpuppetry going on here especially when that ISP is also linked with Pokestarfan. You might have some clue...this is the first time I've tried to deal with someone like this. I wasn't sure if there's enough for the sockpuppet report. Thanks. Pjefts (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that there is an unblock request on hold at User talk:The Newspaper, where the admin placing it on hold tried to ping you, several weeks ago. Evidently he didn't know that pings placed inside unblock requests in that way don't work. Would you like to look at the request? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid, probably due to someone vandalizing from an anonymous IP, you and or User:Vituzzu have disabled me from contributing to Wikipedia from my laptop. Can you look into this problem and override me by a specific IP (hoping that it is consistently assigned by the provider - I do not know that!) or, better, by allowing me to edit through my account anywhere while in this IP range. I appreciate the fact that you are fighting vandalism on Wikipedia! I will add the details right below. gidonb (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis. The block was made by Vituzzu (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is leaky colo + open proxy at 188.166.232.125. Start of block: 16:14, 14 January 2016. Expiration of block: 16:14, 14 January 2021.

You can contact Vituzzu to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 188.166.90.42, and the blocked range is 188.166.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 188.166.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by Elockid for the following reason(s):

Hi Gidonb. That IP range is allocated to Digital Ocean which is a known webhost. Webhosts are blocked because the tend to be hosts for open proxies or other anonymizing services. They've also been a major source of disruption across multiple projects, which is why the IP range is globally blocked. It looks like you may be editing through an anonymizing service. Is it possible to disable that or is it absolutely necessary? Elockid ^{Message me} 11:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had disabled an app on my laptop and could edit again. Thank you for making sense out of the process! gidonb (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longtime anon, created an account just to welcome you back! You've done a lot of good work here and I was half-afraid you were gone for good! We don't have enough good admins here, so it's good to see one of them return. RCBK5 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Don't worry, if I ever decide to leave permanently, I'll make an announcement. Elockid ^{Message me} 22:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For you great work, for years...thanks!! Huldra (talk)

No problem. Always glad to help! Elockid ^{Message me} 02:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elockid. I did some digging, and I noticed you were well acquianted with the Georgian sockmaster ~"Satt2". Well, he once again returned spamming the same frantic edits like he always used to. I know this has been some time ago for you, but could you perhaps take a look at the new SPI case I made for his newest sock and state your opinion? Perhaps taking a look at your own comments of back in the day will refresh a thing or two, might you have forgotten some matters. Bests and thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a good look at tomorrow/Sunday. Good thing I still have all their technical evidence. Elockid ^{Message me} 02:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks a lot. I don't think this matter will take much time. Btw, was User:Olivia Winfield CU blocked or blocked based on behavioral evidence? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's based on behavioral evidence (non-CU block). The account you reported is a  Confirmed sock. Elockid ^{Message me} 22:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need immediate protection of Matt Edmondson due to heavy IP vandalism that is nonstop. CLCStudent (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Widr (talk · contribs) beat me too it. Elockid ^{Message me} 15:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tcnj.best.college is a reincarnation of Dewan357. It's a really old account that has been dormant for four years now and missed in earlier checks. The intersection between this college in NJ and the theory related to India is a standard tell tale. I think Kww and I missed this account in our blocks of that time because he hadn't edited in the India space then. Alerting you as he often has a mass account creation strategy and you may want to keep an eye on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely keep an eye on this. Elockid ^{Message me} 12:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I admittedly wasn't around when you protected Jamaica from "excessive vandalism," I believe that five years of semi-protection is long enough to protect a page from vandalism. Semi-protection was set to indefinite back in January 2011 on that page. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history, I'm a bit reluctant to fully unprotect the page. I've decreased the protection to allow all users to be able to edit the page. But for now though, I'm going to put on PC and will remove it if the level of disruption is low. Elockid ^{Message me} 03:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it doesn't look like the five years of semi-protection has changed anything. There have been seven-ish attempts (albeit over the course of about three weeks) at vandalism since you changed it to pending changes. I suggest raising it to semi-protection again. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid, you were mentioned | over at ANI . This seems to be in reference to | this page for protection request. I'm not at all sure this user is legitimate, but I can't prove it myself. KoshVorlon 15:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP editor who posted that has been blocked for block evasion. The post (which was in Spanish, anyway) has been reverted. The post is viewable at this diff. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)That's just Vote (X) doing his thing. I reverted it a few times, and sure it will appear again before the day's through. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. That's one huge SPI. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just became aware that the 2001:41d0::/32 range no longer is attributed to SAS but to OVH-DSL. Could you please check whether that rangeblock is still necessary? Thanks in advance, Huon (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (It's related to OVH) Yamla (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A week plus later - is this rangeblock needed still? There is an unblock waiting regarding this. SQL^{Query me!} 05:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, damn. I unblocked without checking ANI. -- Luk ^talk 12:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, In 2010, I created a page Titled Tejinder Singh Sodhi, which was deleted by your good-self. Mr Sodhi is a well known award winning journalist based in Jammu and Kashmir presently working with Press Trust of India. He has lot many achievements to his credit and he has become a role model for young and aspiring journalists in the state and the country and I do feel that he should be there on wikipedia. It is requested that the page may be allowed on wikipedia.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.4.96 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If Tejinder Singh Sodhi is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word), as you say, please provide evidence of that. The page has been deleted four times (three of which were in July 2010, two of which were on two consecutive days) by three different administrators. To say he is notable is not enough. We at Wikipedia need at least one or two reliable sources that say specifically how he is a notable person. Not only that, but the article (were it to be recreated or undeleted, both of which are unlikely) itself would need to explain how he is notable. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears there's currently a draft of the deleted page. It was last edited in March. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

someone I know is being affected by your block. As I understand it, part of this range is used by a French ISP (which is owned by the french Webhost OVH, but is supposed to be using different ranges for hosting and ISP purposes). 2001:41d0:fc00::/38 is the ISP according to ripe.net. Can you please double-check (and maybe narrow the range)? Cheers, -- Luk ^talk 12:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi Elockid, i am in a conflict about 6 months ago with a selfish user blocked (unfair). i dont know many laws of wikipedia at that time. ok? after block i creat a other acount that is true in wiki law. but same user report me for vandalism and sockpupet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Personal enmity). all of my edit is useful and for improve or create new article in sport events. but about 3 months all of my useful edit , delete by vandalism! or cockpupet!!!!!!!! i make a mistake but shouldnt prevent my activity for allllllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have one confirm acount by you and correct activity in wiki .dont block me by admins . you can check and see my edits and is vandal block me but is not vandal , i have a right active in wiki and not block. any person may "make a mistake" but Shouldnt always annoyed by admins and other users. i want and like edit in wiki and please help me. as soon as first my useful and correct edit , admins block me without reasonable evidence , only sockpupet and previous acount. i want a confim acount that not block for previous and unactive and blocked acount. wiki is for all but some users is selfish and for his/her monopoly delete and block other user.Tinakatrina (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hello, Tinakatrina. To me, it sounds like the reason your second account was blocked is block evasion. Actually, if your original account is still blocked, creating another account (the one you're using now) is also block evasion. If your first account is still blocked, I suggest you login to it and request an unblock using the {{unblock}} template and posting it to your talk page. Use it like this: {{unblock|''Your reason here'' ~~~~)}}. If you can't post to your talk page, follow the instructions on your original account's talk page to send a request to OTRS. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, because of an irritating AbuseFilter bug, we (Kaldari, MusikAnimal and I) are going to do an update next week that will affect some of your filters. We hope we'll fix all affected filters ourselves, but we're of course grateful if you want to help us. The issue is explained here; the current plan is here. In any case, we wanted you to be aware what's happening, and you're very welcome to help out of course. I'm sending you an email with more details. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid,

you've created a block for 2001:8d8::/32, listing the web host 1and1's whole european IPv6 address space as "open proxy or web host". Out of that block, 2001:8d8:1fe::/47 is dedicated for corporate use by 1and1 employee workstations and doesn't fit the blocking criteria, but creates some colleteral damage. You may also contact User_talk:Rischmueller - he's a network engineer at 1and1, has been very active on the IPv6 article in german wikipedia and can also validate/approve my words.

Best, istalix Istalix (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elockid. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Najat Kaanache is a cook who has caused many professional scandals in Texas and in Miami claiming to have "worked" in some of the most famous restaurants in the world while she was actually an unpaid apprentice. Anyone can apply to be an apprentice, you don't have to be a skilled chef. Her page states that she "worked" in a number of famous restaurants and I changed that to reflect reality, that she was an unpaid apprentice. I also edited the end of the piece with a newspaper reference showing that she was fired from her last job and that she was accused of abuse of employees and of not securing working visas for them which caused them much distress. I feel that people need to be warned about this woman when she enters a city and uses her (self made ) wiki page as proof that she is an internationally recognized professional chef. She is not famous and she really should not have a wiki page. She is basically a low level con. What can be done to make sure that the information remains on the page? Please take a look a the link I added (Miami New Times). Can this be kept on the page to warn potential employers/investors? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.27.79 (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have blocked 107.178.32.0/20 with an expiration time of 3 years. This IP address range belongs to CloudMosa.com and is used to "accelerate web experience on mobile devices through cloud computing." I'm just noting that I've seen two or three unblock requests in the past day or so. I'm not sure why it's a concern now, I'm just bringing it to your attention. I see nothing wrong with the block and I loathe 'web accelerators' like this because of the privacy concerns. Still, you may wish to consider making the block anon-only. I leave the decision entirely to you. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I already modified 45.33.128.0/20 to be anon only for the same reason, so I did it for that range too. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DeltaQuad. --Yamla (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elockid. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #17183 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

ilovecwr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Dec 26, 2016 22:05:31

Message: On the face of it, this would seem to be a suitable case for an IP Block Exemption. May I have your views,please?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I notice that you (Elockid) had implimented a 1-year ban on 198.105.208.0/20 in 2012 and a 5-year ban in 2015 (or was it 2016?). That IP range belongs to Midphase (seems to be a hosting company). I've seen what looks like an "organic" hit to my website from a Midphase IP address recently, so I'm curious as to if it was a robotic hit or a legit human hit. Seeing that Midphase is currently banned by wiki, gives me the indication it's not seen as useful or legit traffic. But I'm curious - what is the ban based on? I don't see any logs of wiki page edits from 198.105.208.0/20, so what exactly did they do to cause the ban? (and BTW, I'm not affiliated in any way with midphase).

(talk page watcher) Elockid is currently away: you can find a tool to examine the contributions from the range here. I quick look tells me there's a mix of edits: some good edits, some spam, trolls, and banned users. I would say most contributions are from anonymising VPN users, and probably not robots. Wikipedia has a habit of blocking anonymising proxies at the first sign of misuse. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid, I see my IP blocked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=95.110.170.52&limit=100&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist

I'm running an Apache Server (with tomcat inside). I 've also set ProxyRequest Off. We are not an open proxy. Why is this IP blocked? 95.110.170.52

Thanks in advance, Mauricio

Hi, it's me again.

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that there was this new SPI investigations log revolving around User:UnderArmourKid, who was a known sockpuppet of User:IPhonehurricane95 (the account was not tagged back in July 2014, due to WP:DENY). His contributions and "unblock request" edits pretty much give it away. However, I think that the new SPI case page could be distracting from the true sockmaster in a potentially detrimental way, so the UnderArmourKid SPI should probably be merged into the IPhonehurricane95 SPI case page, given the fact that the sockmaster was active as recently as only 2 weeks ago.

Concerning the evidence, in the UnderArmourKid SPI archives, the 19 July 2016 case saw a Checkuser link 5 of the accounts named to IPhonehurricane95 (all 5 were confirmed socks of the same user, and at least one of them openly admitted to being IPhonehurricane95). That being said, at least 4 of those same accounts were also apparently linked to UnderArmourKid, an older, known IPh95 sock. The latest sock, User:Bausha Vortex, openly admitted to being UnderArmourKid. M&M Kid also appears to be another IPh95 sock. Lastly, these edits pretty much tie the IPhonehurricane95 sock family to the UnderArmourKid socks: [1] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Earth100&diff=prev&oldid=632819886]. Also, a number of those socks expressed interest in the talk page of UA rocks!, another IPh95 sock, and they also liked to frequent User talk:Earth100 (Earth100 has been a frequent target for harassment by IPhonehurricane95 in the past). Some examples of how their disturbing "unblock requests" match up are right here: [3] [4].

That being said, the sock tags on the accounts listed under UnderArmorKid should be corrected to IPhonehurricane95 tags, and UnderArmourKid should also be tagged as a sock of IPh95. Given the evidence presented above, can you please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid and its Archive into the pages for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95? If you still have any doubts, you can run a Check on any of the accounts I mentioned, or found in the UnderArmourKid SPI archives. I think that it would be a lot more beneficial if all of the accounts were listed together under the correct sockmaster. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's been determined that both sockmasters are probably different users, though there are probably still a number of mislabeled socks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After a period of extensive research, I think I'm ready to move the Rajah Sulaiman I to Rajah Salalila, which, as you can see, was a page you deleted, because it was created by a Sockpuppet. (I suspect he may have moved on to several new accounts, by the way; the bad grammar on Kingdom of Tondo and Religion in pre-colonial Philippines is unique, and a dead giveaway.) I'm not doing it quite yet; I want to rewrite the article before performing the move. (Context: the name "Rajah Sulaiman I" is not used in any of the primary texts referring to the person in question, or in textbooks covering that period of history. They use the exact phrase Rajah Salalila instead. "Sulaiman I" seems to have been added on the basis of oral/genealogical traditions. I can't quite defintively pin it down as a Fringe theory because I don't have access to all the historical texts.) Any advice on how to proceed? At the very least, I do intend to move Rajah Sulaiman I to Rajah Salalila as soon as I get the references of the article in order. - Alternativity (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternativity, Elockid hasn't edited in quite a while, I'm afraid, which is a shame. I can't really advise you on what to do, also because I am not sure what you're asking; if you're asking about an article and moving it, I'd say ping the involved editors and start a conversation on the talk page (or just move it if you think you are right). If you're asking about what to do about a certain sock, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/23prootie is the way to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #18656 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

82.165.233.96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Jul 05, 2017 22:03:42

Message: In view of the appeal, how would you feel about my modfying the block to 'anon only'?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , just a poke to remind you to login to the ACC interface to avoid account suspension. If you know you're not going to be active it's best to suspend your account, then you just poke a tool admin to re-activate it, just let me know which way you want to go. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elockid, Sushant from Sushn345wiki here. Actually, I wanted to ask that how can I enhance the protection of my User Page against Vandalism. I am worried that my User Page could be vandalised by someone. So, if you know any method by which I could enhance the protection of my User Page, then would you please add that protection to my User Page? Sushn345wiki (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sushn345wiki, I have a question for you: What caused you to come to this particular user's talk page to ask for help? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elockid, I am Sushant, editing under the username Sushn345wiki. I saw your User page and it looks stunning! Your user page is so well designed! I liked the appearance of your user page. So, I wanted to ask that can I borrow some of the features of your user page like the scroll option within the user page under the title "Awards and Barnstars". I need the scroll for a purpose, not for the "Awards and Barnstars" for my user page but for something else. Also, can I borrow the code for the blue coloured ball since I need it in my user page as a pointer. Thank you very much!

I hope that you grant me the permission to borrow your code.

Thank you, Sushn345wiki (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demographics of Filipino Americans#Guam and CNMI . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to edit the page South Carolina Governor's School for Science and Mathematics (GSSM), I am met with a pop up that the page is protected by:

"You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 2605:3E80:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) by Elockid for the following reason(s): Server-multiple.svgThe IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

I was able to successfully edit the student life section to enter text to reflect the boys soccer team 2018 division 1A state championship, but when I try to upload a team picture that I took myself as a team parent with permission of coaches and staff, the upload process will not proceed for reasons of commons licensing of the picture.

I request to be able to edit the page to reflect up to date information.

Please advise.

Wiki UserID: warsurplus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warsurplus (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Warsurplus: This user is no longer active on Wikipedia, so they will not be answering. However, I suggest that you take your question to the Teahouse, instead, where you can receive assistance from other users. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who: All members of the public

What: Filipino American History Month-themed Edit a thon at Ohio State University.

When: Saturday 20 October 2018, 4:00PM EST / 1600 until 4:55PM PST / 1655

Where: Eighteenth Avenue Library, Ohio State University

Sponsor: WikiConference North America 2018
San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Activist: In case you haven't noticed, Elockid hasn't edited in 2.5 years, so you might want to request assistance from another editor. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Thanks for the heads up. That's both very helpful and thoughtful. Activist (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 21:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!