Home

Talk Page

Contributions

My Stats

Archives

Subpages

Email

Archives 2009 2010 2011 2012		2013 2014 2015

Hi. I have already warned FOJ not to be abusive or her talk page access would be revoked. However, she ignored this warning and posted abusive comments towards me. Can you please disable the IP's talk page access? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (talk page stalker) I have dealt with it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This abuse has almost tried my patience almost every time I end up dealing with a FOJ sock who has the same history (i.e. Yomiel). I think an abuse response should be filed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid, could you please change your block of 113.29.208.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) to a {{schoolblock}}? The range is owned by the Catholic Education Network (CENET) so will always be accessed through a school context. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have time to comment at User talk:Drmies#Identifying proxies? I'd appreciate it. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Nataev (talk · contribs) is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins. It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which [1]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lorch article is in need of dire attention. Someone called Rich Sauce keeps posting inappropriate images.

Hi, could you re-check your proxy block on 147.91.1.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It doesn't appear to be an open proxy; rather, it looks like a transparent forwarding proxy for the University of Belgrade in Serbia. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an open proxy. Sorry that I didn't respond in time. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Elockid, I'd like to remove mentions of "transgender" from the article here. The title is misleading in that the article itself does not reference gender expression once. What are your thoughts? ... aa:talk 13:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be Darkness Shines ([2], [3], [4] 3 edits in between them) (Blocked for two weeks)? Thanks. I might be wrong but I am fairly certain, just as he finds Nangparbat edits spontaneously conspicuous, I know DS's edits. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the aim to come at Elockid's talk page? You are asking him to launch SP investigations? Now if any editor opposes you, this means that he is DS? It's ridiculous. Faizan 15:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not him. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey elcokid. meeting after a long time.

• See {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="display:none;">User:</span><span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:30px"><b><font color="#4682B4">Elockid</font></b></span>}}

It should display Elockid. Only Elockid.

But it's displaying

• User:Elockid.

Same to me. You can see my userpage.

Can you tell the reason?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 11:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is new. Let me see if I can fix it. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't fixed?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 10:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to fix it yet. :( Elockid ^(Talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought out of the box. It's not the same as the old version but I think it will work. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect El Clasico page... check the history of the edition lots of vandalism ...

Thank you

Doesn't look like there's a lot of vandalism at the moment. Please re-request here or at WP:RFPP if vandalism picks up again. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know if you wanted talk page notices about emails but after re-reading your user page appears so. A few days ago I emailed you asking your view on a Checkuser block you made which is now stale technically. It would be lovely if you could get back to me soon since Ofcourse due to it being technically stale only you can help since you blocked it. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded through email. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to go. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 12 March 2013 Elockid (talk | contribs) blocked 2605:8900::/32 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds ({{webhostblock}})

[5]

There's probably a better way to get you that information, but it's after 11 and I'm sleepy. Basically, User:Wjcw came into #wikipedia-en-help today asking for an IPBE due to the fact he uses a VPS for security, which is included in that rangeblock apparently. this user was (three times if I read it right) granted IPBE for a similar reason (again, if I read it right) with about the same edit history (i.e. not much). I was wondering if there's any way your magic 8 ball/mop could determine if this is a valid case for an IPBE, and if so either reduce the range (I'm not techy, no clue if that's possible) or issue it?

Thanks, Charmlet (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 199.180.254.181 is also used by him (on IPv4 he claims), but is globally blocked as an open proxy. Just fyi, that may need to be re-checked (not sure) Charmlet (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would need more information why they need it for "security" purposes. If they are using it because they are for example editing from a public server/hotspot or just want to be private, then I don't believe that would be valid. However, if by security it is because of bypassing censorships, then I would probably give them the flag. The magic 8 ball won't be really helpful here since if he's editing from a vps/vpn, their home IP is not going to show so I can't tell if they're editing from a country with censorships and such. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember from last night, he is able to edit at his house without editing through his VPS (although he'd prefer editing from his VPS). He said he uses a lot of public very unsecure connections, so that may be a part of it. It may be best to continue this on his talkpage, where he can actually respond. Charmlet (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we talking about IPBEs? I am looking at repealing the blocks or lessening them. It has come to my attention that the IPBE policy is not designed for users such as myself and this fellow who desire utmost privacy and security but indeed can edit by breaking my personal internet browsing rules. My IPv4 address 199.180.254.181 is blocked using {{open proxy}}, though as I mentioned on my talk page, that isn't the case. I am at a loss as to why it is blocked using this template and I would definitely appreciate a proxy check. As for my IPv6 address 2605:8900:3000:1001:4:0:59:2 — blocked using {{webhostblock}} — falls under a block for addresses belonging to my VPS provider ramhost.us, which is a provider of web hosting, VPS hosting, and a VPN. I understand that there is preemptive reasoning to put in place such blocks, so may I inquire: Is there any way to lessen the block to exclude that address? Both addresses I mentioned belong to me and are indeed registered in my name. Neither of these addresses are being used as any type of public, anonymous, or open proxy. I henceforth challenge you to assess the blocks in place. Thank you for responding so soon. Wjcw (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, the user in question appears to have their internet connection run through that IP. Or in other words, they are connecting directly to that IP without using a program or any other means to conceal their IP (that is their home/actual IP). There's a strong stance in Wikipedia to blocking loopholes. For example, we block open proxies because many times, long-term disruptive users have evaded the block imposed on their IP or are looking for ways to conceal their abuse. The blocks I imposed are due to the fact that other users have abused the VPN/VPS in order to bypass blocks placed upon their home IPs. So I apologize, but at this time, I won't unblock the blocks I have imposed. 199.180.254.181 would be in the same boat as the IPv6 address, I'm afraid. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me evidence? It's one thing to tell me of this, but I really wish to understand the formulation of these blocks. Forgive my lack of resourcefulness in finding relevant abusive edits. I do not know where to search. Also if 199.180.254.181 is in the same boat, can you change its block template to {{webhostblock}} as it doesn't host any sort of open/anonymous proxy service? Again thank you for responding so soon. Wjcw (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser policy prevents me to do so, sorry (part of the reason how I was able to find out that users were abusing there was through CheckUser. Since the block is a global block, I believe a Steward are the only people who can amend the block reason. May I suggest contacting the blocking admin on Meta? Elockid ^(Talk) 23:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Elockid, I need you to look at something please. Please see User_talk:Gilliam#Block for some more information. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the rampant vandalism at Christmas Island to see if you can apply some sort of range block to these vandals. They are redirecting the page to many inappropriate targets again.- Gilliam (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some good faith edits across the ranges. Seems like they're only targeting that page though. Semi is probably better. I can filter the edits too if needed. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user is continously removing sourced contents in Velirs page. Please have a look.Rajkris (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case already blocked. But I've placed the page on my watchlist in case there's any further development. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you had a good reason, but I'm unclear why you reblocked This account, which has been blocked since last September, and has not edited since then. --Jayron32 23:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Urgent request. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is related, but I saw you blocked User:Gtownsfs, an old account which did start editing again. I'd assume someone editing the Georgetown University page and Georgia would be a sockpuppet of Satt 2, and wanted to add the name to that long list, but wasn't sure where to do that, or if it was necessary to catalog the user like that, considering the indefinite block.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can just tag (CU confirmed) the account if you want. Not really necessary to catalog since I'm really the only person blocking the accounts. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the content you removed from Agrippina, Countess von Zarnekau other than that it was made by a sockpuppet?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely and solely the reason. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a really good reason. You would have to delete the entire article to remove his edits. I am gonna go back and revert some of your edits that I find unconstructive.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I assume you already know and accept the potential consequences. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of risk of stepping on WP:BEANS, wouldn't it make sense (if there isn't too much collateral) to rangeblock 2600:1000:B100::/39 ?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. Was trying to figure out the range. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be /42? He hasn't gone to 2600:1000:B140:: or higher. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a mobile range, I recommended a /39 - I believe I saw a few in the lower /40.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

/42 should cover based on the ips but mobile ips are usually bigger. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I wanted to recognize you for the work done fighting the Bold text vandalism by the numerous IP's I've seen on AIV. Just for fun, having checked each IP with WHOIS, nearly every one reported with that M.O had one thing in common: They were all registered to Verizon Wireless. Heh, what a waste of data. Anyway, thank you for your vigilance! Signalizing (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Elockid ^(Talk) 19:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Expeditions in Bengal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mahur and Subha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2013 (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.

Hi, you recently blocked Special:Contributions/HammerKinFan per "checkuserblock-account". Could you confirm that it was a AndresHerutJaim sockpuppet so that I can tag/categorize the account (which helps with identification of other socks) ? Would you also be able to have a look at Special:Contributions/Jurrikarsen. Article overlaps with previous socks and repetition of edits such as this, repeating this and this sock edit suggests it's AndresHerutJaim. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]