Jump to content

User talk:Elockid/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC). 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.

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Some DENY please

You blocked the first of the following IPs ("colocationwebhost"). The two of them are poking Gamaliel who is the admin most familiar with gamergate—other admins generally run a mile and hope Gamaliel will handle WP:AE. I assume these are proxies, and the person is now poking at User talk:Gamaliel. They have invoked ADMINACCNT in an attempt to force Gamaliel to either engage with their trolling, or take a black mark for the future by ignoring or reverting it. I'm hoping you might consider stepping in and removing the section.

Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In some cases you can find proxies for companies that offer colocation services. Based on the other IPs I blocked, there's evidently some proxy use or some other similar method. 71.175.16.25 doesn't appear to be a proxy. It's possible that whoever's editing from 71.175.16.25 is trying to conceal their edits. I'm not too familiar with the situation right now, just doing some technical stuff, so I don't think I'm the best person to step in. But I am monitoring the situation and it appears that I'm not the only one. Elockid (Talk) 03:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The other one is probably wifi or some other throw-away IP. Be grateful you are not familiar with Gamergate controversy and WP:ARBGG! Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

New Section

Im updating wikipedia Discovery College page, my child goes there and there have been changes that have been not updated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibhoruz132 (talk • contribs)

No. It's quite evident you're not editing constructively. Elockid (Talk) 03:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back

I think NP and MrP were enjoying your vacation. —SpacemanSpiff 14:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back. It's back to work. Time to rain in on the parade. Where are they at now? Elockid (Talk) 16:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Haven't seen them in a couple of weeks at least, but I just let Abecedare deal with it. BTW, this may seem odd but do you think Undertrialryryr is related to MrP? Likewise for CosmicEmperor who seems to have MrP's attitude and is a closer link.—SpacemanSpiff 17:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Undertrialryryr could be related. But they're editing from an entirely new range that I haven't seen yet. They're also not proxies, something which MrP liked to use to get around his block. Behavior like the sock farm could point to a relation but just at glance, I have some doubts. Cosmic appears to be a different person from what I can see right now. Elockid (Talk) 17:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't entirely sure either, but it seems very odd for so many sock farms of similar POV to have popped up in this area all of a sudden. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised though if they were returning as someone else that we haven't identified yet. In any case, I'm going to keep an eye out. Elockid (Talk) 12:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:The Amazing Spiderman

You blocked this account with a "checkuser block", but have not specified who this is account is (allegedly) a sockpuppet of, how they were originally being disruptive, nor was there a note of how to format an unblock request on their talk page, or any note of a sockpuppet investigation on the user page. Under exactly what policies was this block made? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That account belongs to Undertrialryryr. I was investigating a range that was heavily used by them and there appeared to be many logged out edits that continued editing in the same areas as Undertrialryryr's socks. This user has a high tendency to create a sock farm, so coupled with the logged out editing, I decided to run a check. Looking at the range, I blocked a batch of fresh socks. Many socks have already been blocked since the last SPI investigation. Other than creating sock accounts, this user has been harassing editors and creating attack only accounts (some now hidden by another Oversighter). This is a classic example of Good Hand, Bad Hand account editing. Elockid(Boo!) 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I think I've had two of these socks post something on my talk now; I don't know why people create so many of these things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Metropolitan Areas by Population

Hello, first I want to apologize, it was not my intention to post incorrect information. I do not intend to waste other users' time or to post misinformation.

Secondly, it should be noted that Bogota does not have an official Metropolitan area that the government recognizes and numbers vary largely due to a huge amount of migrant workers and displaced persons that are not counted in the national census. Because of this, I think we should make an exception and find several sources that are reliable. The number that is posted only includes the number of inhabitants in the Bogota capital district, not including its adjacent municipalities.

I'd like to collaborate with you and other users to make the article more accurate, as well as other articles related to the topic.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing back.

Aldiazmo (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that if we make exceptions for one entry, it would only be fair to make exceptions for the others. It's going to get messy if exceptions are made. For example, the cited figure for Los Angeles is much lower than other sources state. The reason being that other sources also include the Inland Empire while the US census bureau does not. I've seen people even state that the Inland Empire isn't really a metropolitan area but just a collection of suburbs combined together. If you've been to the Los Angeles area, you'd probably even be convinced that the Inland Empire was just suburbs of Los Angeles. Other areas I can think off hand right now are London, Bangkok, and Manila with both Bangkok (14+ million) and Manila (20+ million) being much higher. It's not perfect, but I believe it's the most fair way.
Using multiple sources to come up with a conclusion even though the sources does not state the conclusion is original research which is not allowed under policy. Also, I can find no reliable source that puts Bogota's number even close to 14 million. Elockid(Boo!) 22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply,

I understand completely what you mean, and I will take that in to consideration regarding the next time I edit an article. The best thing to do is to leave the article as is until the 2016 Colombian Census is done.

Cheers.

Aldiazmo (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello E. Love the Halloween theme for your talk page! I wanted to let you know that a thread about your editing has been opened here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Weird editing by Elockid since it is unlikely that the IP will. Have a pleasant weekend in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 14:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Update. Turns out it was a sockpuppet that opened the thread and it has already been deleted so there is nothing for you to worry about. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It's just Vote X, you're the favored admin today. —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Marnette for the notification and the compliment. Thanks SpacemanSpiff for handling em. Elockid(Boo!) 13:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite Errors

Hello dear Elockid, since tonight on so many pages, which are welldone (even/also the page about Steinway & Sons, there one can find a cite error at the end of the "References"; though there is/are no mistake(s). Can you give me a help how to manage it? All the best and many thanks, looking forward in hearing again,--BachChopinFavorite (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I was beaten to it. When you're using <ref name="insert here">. You have to put a forward slash by the quotation mark so it reads as <ref name="insert here"/><nowiki>. So for this article, instead of: <nowiki><ref name="Steinway lithograph">{{cite web |url=http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=August&Date=10 |title=Cartoon of the Day – "Sudden Mania to Become Pianists..." |date=August 10, 1867 |publisher=HarpWeek, Harper's Weekly |accessdate=February 1, 2015}}</ref> on the second part where you want to use the source, you can simply put <ref name="Steinway lithograph"/>. But be sure that the full reference is given beforehand. You don't need to copy the entire reference. I hope that helped a little. Elockid(Boo!) 13:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you so much. YES, this helped much to understand! Thank you so much and have a great day and time. All the best, --BachChopinFavorite (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to stop by anytime. Elockid(Boo!) 14:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Signature

Please change your signature into something normal. It's not an avatar. You don't need to make it 10 times bigger than everyone else's. It violates point one of our Signature policy —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Point one does not explicitly or definitively prohibit the use of font-size tags though. If I don't use font-size tags, my signature may be too small to read which could be violating point four especially for users with poorer eyesight. But since my signature size has caused concern, I have reduced the size of my sig. Elockid(BOO!) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
None of our rules prohibit definitively anything at all, since we always have "Ignore all rules". Whenever you start messing with font sizes, you will be bothering someone.
Even now if I have my default font set to 11pt or 25pt, your signature is a problem and that is because you are using fixed fontsizes instead of relative font sizes. You are using 3 tags for something that can be done with one, u are using the deprecated <font> tag and you are messing up the line height with the <sup>. This signals that you don't understand HTML, and people who don't understand HTML shouldn't be making changes to their signature in my personal opinion. But because it is difficult to take back what was once given, we have a policy to somewhat 'curtail' the craziness and that's.
Try this instead: 
[[User:Elockid|<span style="font-family:Chiller;font-size:110%;font-weight:bold;color:#8B0000">Elockid</span>]]<sup style="font-family:Chiller;">([[User talk:Elockid|<span style="color:#B22222">BOO!</span>]])</sup>
Elockid(BOO!) That at least tackles 3 out of 5 problems. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I changed my signature. Elockid(BOO!) 10:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

bizzare blocking error

FYI, I just spent some time trying to figure out why I had been blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Blocked.21. It claimed you were the blocking editor. I'm pretty sure it was a weird network error. Tfr000 (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What was the blocking message you received? Elockid(BOO!) 00:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Something about a block of IP addresses that were causing persistent vandalism. I should have taken a screen shot - can't duplicate it now! Pretty frustrating, because the unblocking procedure is to put some tag at the bottom of your own talk page, and I couldn't edit that! Tfr000 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
If you do get the blocking message again, please be sure to email me. Elockid(BOO!) 00:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Hi Elockid, how's it going? I've seen quite a few of these, sneaking around the peripheries for quite some time. Any info about what's going on? -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz! Everything is good, thanks for asking. I hope everything is well for you too. Unfortunately, I don't have any more information other than what's already present. If anything comes up, I'll be sure to share any info that I can. Elockid(BOO!) 19:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought you would know about this sort of proxy user :) 189.43.170.65 (talk · contribs) 169.255.77.27 (talk · contribs · block log).. Also some interesting new accounts. There's some sort of mission going on, worth looking at, IMO ... -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
On further examination, I reckon this is somehow related to Trevvvy (talk · contribs). -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Good find. I'm usually on top of these things. Hope I'm not losing my touch. Elockid(BOO!) 21:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change

You got a script or something for those blocks? :-) --NeilN talk to me 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't have one, sorry. Doing them all manually. Elockid(BOO!) 20:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, you block 200.126.223.103 but he still continue use other accounts Enhermah and maybe בשלני, definately 88.8.246.86 and 200.69.247.145 and possibly others. He still remove information from same and many other article with lots references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.160.171 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notification. I'll be sure to investigate and take any needed action when I get on my main account. ElofoSho (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked 200.69.247.145 and Enermah. Another user has informed me that the user apparently recruits others. The other IP is likely a meatpuppet and I have not taken action this time. בשלני doesn't appear to be the targeted user and as such I have not blocked the account. Thanks again for your help and please continue to report any activity. Elockid(BOO!) 21:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, @Elockid:. The person you are talking about is using another ip adress, also from Argentina. 181.29.23.24 he has been deleting completely sourced material, and using different ips to revert the deletion reverts.--Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
User @Tanbircdq: has witnessed similar encounters with this user.--Makeandtoss (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I can see Nishidani had similar experiences too and appeared to abstain from reverting out of fear of breaking the 1RR restriction for Palestine/Arab-Israeli articles, which I can understand as Makeandtoss even got a warning for reverting the IP on the History of the Jews in Jordan page. I noticed Kingsindian mentioned that a page protection request was made for one of the articles being targeted but this doesn't appear to have been accepted for some reason. Elockid may you could temporarily semi-protect the pages that are being regularly vandalised for one or two weeks to see if that sorts the problem? Tanbircdq (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately even after the 24 hours ends, I have to go to these several ips and users and to check their edits which are mostly blanking of referenced content. It can get quite problematic since undoing these removals will undo other legitimate edits by other users.--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP. If disruption worsens, I'll protect the pages. Please keep the reporting guys. Elockid(BOO!) 21:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Might be important, might not

I saw your deletion of Javad Ramezani (actor) while responding to an AIV report. In the event you need to know, I have blocked Jneferlopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and speedied their Javad Ramezani (Vocalist). Tiderolls 14:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. ElofoSho (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hoklo Taiwanese and Chen Chih-hsiung

--223.136.72.33 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

--223.137.145.54 (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

None of those lessen the fact that you're a blocked user. Elockid(BOO!) 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel edits

Cool Troll Killer has taken up where Wolfgangmatron left-off. What was the rational behind Wolfgangmatrons block? Murry1975 (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are socks of a prolific sockmaster named AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs). Elockid(BOO!) 19:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking it was a bit socky. I see you have PP, thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Feel free to stop by anytime. Elockid(BOO!) 19:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Why am i blocked from editing Wikipedia?

You blocked my IP because i am using a proxy, when i am editing from one of the computers at my school. Can you please unblock me?

Taradle (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Taradle

What is the block message you're getting? Elockid(BOO!) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible block evasion.

Note similar edits here and here. Sai's first edit was to ShivaShakthiSaiTV. GABHello! 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Elockid(BOO!) 12:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Missed one?

Consider doing to this what you already did to a related item. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thought I did that. Must've exited the tab while revdeleting. Thanks for notifying me. Elockid(BOO!) 12:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

IP making massive edits on refdesks, inserting comments with other signatures

Hi, you blocked this IP yesterday, from the edit summary and content of this edit it looks like they're back under another address. DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A bit late but thanks for the notification. That's just Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs) up to their usual disruption. Elockid(BOO!) 23:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User 4.30.208.70 linked to sockpuppets ranged block

Hello, The recent vandalism done by User:4.30.208.70 on multiple talk pages (including yours) are disturbing, thus should be removed or made inaccessable permanenlty from these pages' edit histories. Also based on those edits, I think they are linked to those sockpuppets whom you blocked last week, as they both have similar language and targets. 137.122.64.67 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Im reposting this from my mobile as the computer which I first posted from had the same IP address as a user whom recently vandalized had, since this is a wifi zone where many IPs are shared and devices may use different IPs at a given time. 137.122.64.67 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the situation and apply any additional blocks if necessary. Thanks for letting me know. Elockid(BOO!) 23:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed protection level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Elockid, please, i've been typing for almost an hour to add my last message in that page section where i was talking about a misuse i've undergone, you've changed the protection level so that i can't keep discussing, you're free to check that i'm not a troll or something like that, i've always been polite, never offensive, but now i can't add my last message, which is very important to me because it's about a range block extension which originally had to end in about half day but risks to continue for 2 weeks, already 4 users said it was right to tear it up, this setback's the last thing i need right now, i know you're having problem for sock puppetry but might you please find a solution for me? couldn't you for example restore the protection level for a minute, in order to give me the time to add my message, or write that message yourself since you're an admin, or allow me to edit that discussion, or do whatever else? please, don't ignore my request answer as soon as possible! the section i'm talking about is: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Collateral_damage_from_rangeblock Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Centocinquantuno:, I've given your account confirmed status. This will allow you to continue editing. Apologies for the inconvenience. Elockid Message me 20:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thank you so much, you're great!

Centocinquantuno (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

Can you have a look at the unblock request at User talk:Faibbus? It relates to a range block which you have imposed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There have been multiple proxies used by this range. They're in the CU logs and I believe listed in filter 464. I can't posts specifics right now since I don't have access to either. But the range is allocated to OVH. They do have an range for non-hosting customers but most of their ranges are for webhosting. The proxies that are evident with that range leads me to believe that this is a hosting range. ElofoSho (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's some examples: 2001:41D0:8:B330:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs), 2001:41D0:1:8E70:0:0:0:0 (talk · contribs), 2001:41D0:8:6A40:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs), 2001:41D0:2:BF1C:C35F:E5F6:161D:D99A (talk · contribs). There's quite a bit of socking, I know at least one is known to use proxies/anonymizing services. Looks like classic behavior for OVH hosting. Elockid Message me 12:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion by whom

If you blocked my previous IP, then you should also mention there in the post. Block evasion by which user. You very well know that I am not Babitaarora because you are a Check User, isn't it? Trust me your CU tools are becoming Obsolete.

And please end the suspense of this case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ntiele

It's on hold for a long time. --1.39.137.116 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I very well know who you are. You have consistently engaged in constant sexual harassment towards another user (I know which sockpuppet accounts they are) and have disrupted this encyclopedia while pretending to make "good" edits. Per the privacy policy, I can't disclose who you are. ElofoSho (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. Are you having a good day? --217.170.205.193 (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Thank you for asking. Elockid Message me 03:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of banned user's comments

If you are going to do a mass deletion, please include the reason in the edit summary, and preferably a link that shows they are banned. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's stated in the block reasoning who the banned user is (That's Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs)). Also, these edits were already identified that it was a banned editor. Elockid Message me 19:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I recommend a 1-month semi-protection of ANI & any other page he/she appears on. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Wish I could do that. But ANI and some of the pages they're editing (mostly the Reference desks) can have quite a bit of anon traffic. I don't think a month protection would fit well with others. Elockid Message me 23:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
At the rate that "Vote (X)" is going, that page will be virtually semi-protected on a daily basis. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I suppose maybe a discussion on ANI if it's alright with everyone to have a longer protection. I'll start a discussion on ANI some time later today or tomorrow. About to log off. Elockid Message me 23:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SPI question

Hello, earlier today you declined an autoblock removal here. Is this something that I should file an SPI report about? There is some other evidence that has me wondering. /wia /tlk 03:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless you suspect that there are other socks, a tag on the sock account should be sufficient. Elockid Message me 03:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of urban areas by population, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Huangyan, São Luís and Lanxi. 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) 11:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody

I think I made some kind of mess. I history-merged Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xenoradixde into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody. But, since the two pages were edited in the same period, the page history is now a mix of revisions of Xenoradixde and Orangemoody pages. Should I leave it like that, or is there some solution? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you what you mean. I suppose we could leave it as is. I don't foresee much harm. Though if you're willing to undo everything, I do have a possible solution. Hopefully it's not tedious and overly complicated, but you could delete the page and specifically restore the revisions for each case. What I mean is that when you delete the page, you restore the revisions for Xenoradixde and move it back to the Xenoradixde case. Then restore revisions for the Orangemoody case. Then just copy paste everything over from Xenoradixde's case to Orangemoody's. Elockid Message me 18:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hm... But then, we would not have the whole history in one place. In that case, I think the present situation is better. At least everything is in the same place. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ACC awaits you

Hello! Can you please jump into ACC for a second and look at request #156348? Thanks—UY Scuti Talk 04:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@UY Scuti: Looks good to create. Elockid Message me 12:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

New section

Steve Jobs page reference need editing. There's a lost source link for the biological father's information from a news article. Here's the cache: http://web.archive.org/web/20111031023108/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2011011891545 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMolokaiO (talk • contribs)

You're more than welcome to make the change yourself. Elockid Message me 22:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI and Vote (X) for Change

Personally, I think ANI should be indefinitely semi'd instead of temporarily semi'd. I feel that the protection expiries are just a "wake-up alarm" for Vote (X) for Change to resume disruption. So, rather than continuing to waste time with him at ANI, you should protect ANI indefinitely. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There isn't consensus to do so at this moment. If it changes, then I can implement it. Elockid Message me 21:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
OK but the suggestion may have been that if a page is protected for, say, for 48 hours, the user knows to troll elsewhere and resume here in 48 hours. If the page were protected indefinitely it could be manually unprotected 50 hours later without giving the invitation to return at a particular date/time. I know that would have difficulties with activists wanting to oppose an indefinite protection even if the plan was explained. In much the same way, the refdesk problems would be alleviated if participants there won't so eager to restore posts that others had removed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll try a longer protection next time with a message to unprotect anytime for ANI. Elockid Message me 00:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Your block of the Wrapper Wreckers sockfarm

I was keeping my eye on this waiting for the first sign of underhandedness. Should I just ask for a preemptive block in the future? Meters (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah you can just report them. These are socks of MascotGuy. Elockid Message me 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll know who it is next time. Meters (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Protection request

Hello, Elockid! I'm sorry, I have some request: unknown vandal (or vandals) still active:

Capital_Punishment_in_Japan_History. May you protect this page again. Thanks! 92.243.166.135 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid Message me 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Alt account?

Is ManLiker69 an alt. account of yours? Thought I'd ask on the extremely unlikely offchance -- samtar whisper 19:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, blocked -- samtar whisper 19:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note for others, any alternate accounts of mine are labeled and/or created by my main account. Elockid Message me 20:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ACC request

Hey Elockid, I just wanted to let you know that there is currently an account creation request requiring your attention in the CheckUser queue. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, MJ94 (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Handled. Elockid Message me 13:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

CU request

Any chance you could handle my quick CU request? [1] --NeilN talk to me 16:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Commented there. Elockid Message me 16:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Bell Canada Rangeblock

Hello, Just a few days ago, I was blocked from editing using my 3G network as a range block had been enforced by yourself. As this IP address's domain is of the cellular service Bell Canada, these IP addresses are therefore dynamic and change frequenlty with cellular users. Meaning that someone can easily change their IP address either by moving to different locations or even by consistenly rebooting their phones. Therefore is there a way to pinpoint the person behind these vandalism attacks and block him/her directly, rather than blocking a range of addresses (meaning every one from Bell Canada) for editing Wikipedia? Its ridiculous that there are only a few vandals whom are ruining it for a large group of people. 207.164.79.29 (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the IP range you're editing from? Regarding some of your other concerns, there is currently no way no block a specific device from editing. Cellular networks allocate their IP ranges based on location. Unless the vandal has consistently been editing from for example BC, Ontario, and Quebec in a span of a few hours, it is highly unlikely that the entire Bell Canada range is blocked. Elockid Message me 12:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I recently rebooted my phone, hence the change of IP address. Actually, the last IP address I posted the edit from was likely based in the Mississagua, Ontario region given that I was there not too long ago, thus likely wasn't affected by the block. However as I am now back in the York Region area, this IP address that I am now editing from has previously been affected by the block, which was applied to the following range of 184.151.190.0/24 (or something similar). It is therefore likely that this vandal is based in the York Region area (northeastern Greater Toronto Area). 184.151.190.153 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That could be possible. The vandal has been disrupting the project for some time now and has been threatening to cause mass disruption (that's one of the IPs they've been using). There's other threats but the one I linked to is the most recent. It is likely that if they do decide to carry out those threats, the IP(s) may be blocked again. Might I suggest registering an account? It's a quick process. If you are unable to do so because of there is a block in place, you can also request one at WP:ACC. If you do decide to request an account while the IP is blocked, please ping me by placing {{ping|Elockid}} that you have requested the account and I can expedite the process for you. Elockid Message me 15:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow that is really messed up. Thanks, but I actually do have a Wikipedia account. However I dont see the point of keep on signing in for the purpose to make minor edits, as Safari doesnt always keep me logged in. Maybe I should get the Wikipedia app on my phone instead, so I can remain logged in at all times. (184.151.190.153 (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

Request for a review of a block

There is an unblock request at User talk:Agrimpard, relating to a web host block you placed on the range 2001:41d0::/32. The editor accepts that the company that the range belongs to runs a web host service, but says that they also act as an ISP, and that he or she is using it merely as an ISP. Looking at pages on the company's web site makes that explanation look perfectly likely, but I really can't tell whether the particular IP address is a web host or not. Can you look into it, and decide whether there is clear evidence that the IP address is a web host? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-hosting ranges are listed as DSL/Telecom. SAS is hosting. Elockid Message me 22:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I take it that means that the blocked range is used only for hostign purposes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi, User:Ponyo advised me to contact you regarding this here. I wanted to know if a a checkuser be done for 7uperWkipedan as suggested by NeilN here. 7uperWkipedan was incorrectly tagged as a sock of AndresHerutJaim when he was actually topic banned from WP:ARBPIA and then indefinitely blocked for not complying with it. However, as pointed out here by Jeppiz action needs to be taken against the sockmaster, who had not been identified and there may also be sleepers still in operation. I wasn't sure how to request a new report and there's no suspected socks to compare it with. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I ran a check on 7uperWkipedan and did not find anything much else at that time. They mostly edit logged out and have been doing so for quite some time. I believe since at least 2013 (I have been getting reports from other users who suspected that the logged out edits may be AndresHerutJaim). Based on what I've seen this appears to be 7uperWkipedan's first account. ElockidHappy holidays! 15:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Elockid, thanks for answering my last query. I was wondering if you could have a look at this outstanding investigation here. Nableezy has sent an email of behavioural evidence, however, there does not appear to be acknowledgement of whether this has been received and reviewed by anyone. Considering that Nableezy has a lot of experience spanning six years with this master, I have suggested taking this into account. In addition to Nableezy, IPs appear to be making the same accusation about the editor being a sock too. Can a CheckUser be performed to find out if the editor in question is or has been controlling any other accounts? Tanbircdq (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It could be possible that the email may have been sent to spam which is why there was no response. It does appear that other CheckUsers have previously looked at this matter and it doesn't look like they were able to come up with anything worthwhile. They haven't commented previously in the SPI so I'm not sure if they are familiar with the case. I could perform a Check but I would need more evidence. I would be interested to see this email. Perhaps I could find stronger links. ElockidHappy holidays! 13:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify I was referring to the SPI opened on 29 October 2015, not the one for 6 October 2015. In addition, as HJ Mitchell agreed the editing behaviour suggests it's very likely that this isn't the editor's first account, is this not enough for a CheckUser request under WP:BLOCK EVASION? Maybe Nableezy can clarify the whereabouts of his/her email. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I need to do a little clarifying myself. I was referring to the case for 29th of October. The account has been looked at by several CheckUsers and it didn't appear that they have found anything fruitful. What I was going for in asking the email was that perhaps it would give me additional information for me to perform additional checks (these will be for a comparison to link for a potential sockmaster). ElockidHappy holidays! 23:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the help desk?

Ok; I get that an IP was causing disruption and appeared to be a blocked or banned editor. But... it's the help desk, where people are supposed to go for help. It gets a LOT of questions from new editors and IPs, none of whom are autoconfirmed. It seems like it defeats the purpose of even having a help desk to indef semi-protect it just because one user is causing disruption there. Moreover, if that user is who everyone seems to think it is, then they are more than capable of evading the block, the semi-protection, etc. should they so choose. Yes, the Teahouse exists to help new users, but I think for a lot of them the help desk is easier to find. It just seems illogical to protect the help desk. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I realize that this page has a higher level of anon and new user traffic which is why I kept the protection to a short duration. It is not indefinitely semi-protected, it expires in a few hours. ElockidHappy holidays! 16:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see, it's the move protection that's indefinite. That makes more sense. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IF this is true (you've offered no proof)...

...then you should have said that in your original edit summary.

Is there something, somewhere that says banned users are not allowed to bring concerns to ANI?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not required to revert ban users. The banning policy states the following: "Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.". ElockidHappy holidays! 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Not saying I don't believe you but, can you link to this please? I'm not going to (nor should any editor ever be expected to) go search for non-linked policies. You wanna quote a policy, link to it. Otherwise, it's rubbish.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:Site ban and the site ban discussion here. ElockidHappy holidays! 01:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much (haven't read them yet but, I will)!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Banned users are not allowed to edit in any way, shape or form; and the edit summary I posted "WP:DENY" is sufficient explanation. You need to let the admin do his job, and not feed the troll by assuming bad faith on the part of the admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ya... nothing about your response was a "sufficient explanation." I'm not going to (nor should any editor ever be expected to) go search for non-linked policies. You wanna quote a policy, link to it. Otherwise, it's rubbish.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The point is WP:DNFTT. The more you fool around with this, the more attention the banned user gets. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed (all the more reason to not confuse others...)!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright, here's one for you. WP:3RR. Right now you are at four. 1, 2, 3, 4. So don't touch another editor's comments there, period. Go read WP:BAN.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, lost count! Thanks so much! Won't happen again, promise!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
About the removal of banned-editor edits, see Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors where it says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't read any of these links yet (but, I will - and not because I think you guys are lying or anything, I'm genuinely interesting in reading them) but... wouldn't that one be the same as what Elockid has already linked to above?Cebr1979 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe Bugs is trying to give a more precise location about the situation. ElockidHappy holidays! 04:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha (both)! Thanks!Cebr1979 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a WP:ACC request

Hello Elockid, could you please hope in ACC for a minute and check 159073 please? Thanks—UY Scuti Talk 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Appears good to process. ElockidHappy holidays! 23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Impressive reverting

You almost always get to Vote X's ongoing campaign posts before me (and I'm pretty addicted vigilant!) - great work! :) Seeing as the text follows a very predicable pattern, would an edit filter be any use? Perhaps applied solely to the noticeboard for unregistered users? I'm sure it's been considered, just curious Merry Christmas! -- samtar whisper 17:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and whip something up and get it going the day after Christmas (hope you don't mind the wait). Also, have a happy holiday! ElockidHappy holidays! 17:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course the wait is fine Thanks for being awesome enough to do it! -- samtar whisper 17:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Samtar: I've sent you an email regarding this. ElockidHappy holidays! 14:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe AndresHerutJaim

Special:Contributions/Gilsrafnorn looks like it could be another User:AndresHerutJaim sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. ElockidHappy holidays! 13:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Salamat. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 Elockid, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day.
Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Hope you had a good one. ElockidHappy holidays! 13:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for decrease in page protection

Hi! The page Calvin Cheng was fully protected on 16 December. Although it seems like an editing dispute, there were multiple incidents of disruptive editing. There was persistent removal (including a WP:3RR violation which I did not report) of reliably cited content by one particular editor (see [2], [3], [4]). If you look at the history of the article, you can see there have been other similar instances of this user's actions. The page was previously protected from 2 December to 8 December due to similar reasons. At the moment, there seems to have been some consensus on the talk page between me and another editor Khairulash. However, I am not sure how to deal with the third editor. There editor in question has also previously performed unexplained blanking of talk page discussion (see Talk:Calvin Cheng#Removing Comments from Talk_Page.) I would like to know your opinion on these incidents (please have a look at the history of the page). Do they count as disruptive editing? (Sorry, I have been editing for about 6 weeks so I may not be as experienced). If all is well, could you decrease the level to semi-protection so that autoconfirmed users can edit it?
Is there also any way to check if a editor has been editing simultaneously from their account and also from another IP (maybe using a different browser?) I may be wrong, but looking at the edits being reverted and also the writing style of certain posts on the talk page, I feel inclined to believe so. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on the latest comment from Aricialam, it would appear that he/she has had an agreement with you. As such, I have unprotected the page. Regarding your concerns about the removal of talk page comments, I do believe the removal was inappropriate. It appeared that legitimate concerns were trying to be raised. If there was a repeated removal of these comments, these would be classified as disruptive. But it doesn't look to be the case here.
There is a way to check if a person is simultaneously from their account and logged out. CheckUsers such as myself have the ability to look into this. Though we generally do not share specifics about technical evidence and we don't reveal which IPs an editor has been using. For example, I can't publicly or even privately tell you that whether or not the IPs were being used by the same editor. In the future, if you suspect sockpuppetry, please file an SPI at the sockpuppet investigations page. ElockidHappy holidays! 13:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Yup, thankfully there was no repeated removal of comments. I just wanted to know whether it was appropriate behaviour or not. Hopefully there will not be any further disruptions on the page.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on SPI as well! I will file a request should I require in the future.  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OVH Rangeblock

Heya, Regarding this block, could I ask for your input here please? SQLQuery me! 13:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@SQL:, see User talk:Elockid#Request for a review of a block. WHOIS is saying that is SAS. ElockidHappy holidays! 13:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elockid/Archive_19&oldid=1094786121"