Hi, Reaper Eternal. Just so you know, FiveSidedFistagon has returned again, this time as Flatus I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([1], [2]). Isn't it time to give him a block? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Floquenbeam's got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's come back as Flatus II (talk · contribs), Flatus III (talk · contribs), Flatus IV (talk · contribs), Flatus V (talk · contribs), Flatus VI (talk · contribs) (all blocked by Elockid (talk · contribs)), Flatus VII (talk · contribs), Flatus VIII (talk · contribs), Flatus IX (talk · contribs), and Flatus X (talk · contribs) (blocked by myself). Sigh. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I have started a ban proposal on this individual at AN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that will stop him? WP:RBI. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:RBI is best, but if he is community banned, his edits can be reverted on sight. If the ban doesn't work, we should just basically revert him if he ever shows up again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the {{remove}} template to vote; otherwise chances that a clever closer may ignore it. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks. It'd have likely been missed in the flood of little icons. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody were posting spam using my personal computer. thats why u blocked my domain www.celebritiesheight.com. i m extremely sorry for that and now my pc is safe, so i request u to remove my sites from your blocklists.

Regards Durchana

Doesn't say on your page that you have check user rights here but judging from your comment on my sock report it appears you have, care to clarify it for me? Mo ainm~Talk 09:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have checkuser. Additionally, in the SPI report on you, checkuser would not have been used, since your prior account was long since stale, and whether it was you wasn't in question. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it wasn't in question? Mo ainm~Talk 13:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it wasn't you? Why didn't you say so on the SPI, then? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated within my evidence and in a comment I just left on the page, but as far as I am aware there is technical evidence that checkusers can look at beyond matching accounts based on their IP addresses that can be examined. That is why I asked for checkuser. That is why it is necessary in this case. There are no named accounts being linked to IP addresses to violate the privacy policy. I am asking that the operator of several IP addresses be confirmed as the same person.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error on this page. googleappspotblock template fails to appear. Not sure if this is a system limitation or not. (e.g., due to period next to the end of the template call tag) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindWolf8 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]