User talk:Elockid: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:42, 18 April 2014

E L O C K I D

 
Home

Talk Page

Contributions

My Stats

Archives

Subpages

Email

E L O C K I D ' S U S E R P A G E

Click here to leave me a message.

Ministry of Defence (India)

There were reverts; extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It seems to have quieted down over the pass couple weeks. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

174.236.0.0/16 blocks

Could you reveal why you made 2 blocks on this range late last year? I'm currently dealing with vandalism coming out of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user above has been persistently reverting my comments and edits. I reverted an edit by this user for uncited content on an article. He later cited sources but I am concerned about his suspicions. I understand IP users usually are found vandalizing the site but this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.68.115 (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in question is being discussed at WT:AFD. 174.236.68.115 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the pages they've edited it's blatant block evasion by at least one of them so I've blocked for a few days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this during my absence. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massive 12bit 4,096 IP Address Block

Hi there :) Sorry to bother you but your massive block of the 173.255.128.0/20 subnet has caught within it one of OctaneVPNs Private, Pay only, Dallas, TX, US VPN servers at 173.255.139.216. It is my understanding that Private VPN traffic is encouraged and that more encrypted traffic benefits us all, so I would be greatly appreciative if you could unblock this address and even more appreciative if you or another admin could check the rest of their servers listed at http://www.octanevpn.com/server-locations.html - this is the second blocked IP I have hit this week, and being severely disabled it is not something i can check and address properly, even addressing the ones i find is painful to say the least. I suspect these have been caught in old blocks prior to OctaneVPN expansion into them, and I greatly appreciate your help both in protecting us in the first instance and in addressing this issue in future. Thank you for your help :) Myco Mycosys (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the wait but anyways I only block VPNs if they were used abusively. The reasons being are that they are being used by Chinese spammers or they were used by sockpuppeteers. If you qualify for IPBE, then I may grant it to you. Is there a reason why you're using a VPN (this will help if you want to have IPBE). Elockid ^(Talk) 14:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndresHerutJaim

Hi, I don't know whether you are around at the moment but Special:Contributions/Hiefer_Kabalarian looks like another AndresHerutJaim sock. Same MO, edits to get autoconfirmed, then back to editing old favorites edited by many of his previous socks, History of Israel (e.g. User:Crandmeipait, User:SILtmediaup...too many to list), Israel Defense Forces (e.g. User:Elirhann Oraz89, User:Michael Zeev), Gaza flotilla raid (e.g. User:Michael Zeev), Timeline of Operation Pillar of Defense (e.g. User:IranitGreenberg), Iran–Israel proxy conflict (e.g. User:HammerKinFan, User:Elirhann Oraz89). Sean.hoyland - talk 08:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and

Confirmed along with another sock which I also blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 Rangeblock Request

Could you do a range block on the following ranges/accounts: User:2601:A:3680:6:64FD:8EF:6C57:F75D and User:2601:a:3680:6:23ee:322d:ac56:a151. The user running these accounts is a sockpuppet of indef-blocked user User:Zimmermanh1997. Zimmermanh1997 has a long list of sockpuppets to his name.

The user has, just recently, began using IPv6 IPs, previously using "regular IPs". I'm hoping this will make it easier to block him without any collateral damage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/64 range hardblocked six months. The only collateral for /64 Comcast ranges would be from their household. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's on both, correct? Rangeblocks confuse me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the /64 rangeblock encompasses both IPs. I was a little confused with the IPv6 ranges at first, but I finally got the hang of them. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't even sure they could be rangeblocked or not. :) I have much to learn. Thanks for your help. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I have no idea what is going on Tharunu (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work

		The Account Creation Barnstar
		For your extraordinary work to help clear a huge backlog in the CU queue, the ACC users and many new Wikipedians who were collateral damage due to range blocks thank you for your time and effort. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Elockid ^(Talk) 14:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyjoejoeman

He is not socking under the IPs of 108.94.64.165, 195.46.243.118, 175.106.48.196, 5.236.189.163, and 79.127.71.98. 2602:306:ce9a:860:c4ac:1d67:47a9:1d59 is spreading lies and socking under various weird strings of numbers, all coming from Richardson, TX, and you actually believe that Joeyjoejoeman is back and vandalizing Wikipedia. Those edits on Reno, NV TV pages were not sock/vandal. 107.161.16.205 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, do you think I don't know who you are?

12:12, October 1, 2013 Elockid (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 108.94.64.165 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 16:56, March 7, 2014 ({{checkuserblock}})

Since that IP was a CheckUser block, I can't disclose who you are really are publicly, but do know that I know who is editing behind the webhosts and other IPs especially since I blocked a number of them in the past. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:45, 26 March 2014 (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.

—Vensatry _(Ping) 10:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the whole Spanish thing.

Hi Elockid thanks for editing the Spanish language article. My friends got on and edited it but I thought he didn't save the changes. Sorry about that :)

No need to worry about that. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Andrewbf

Can you please block him for expiry set of indefinite? He did changed the genre without citation and source, and personal attack. 183.171.179.204 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account for 31 hours. Unless the account's sole purpose is to make bad faith edits, then an indefinite block may be an option. However, I'm not an expert in the subject area they are editing on, so I can't definitively say that they are here to solely cause disruption. Hopefully this block will be a wake-up call. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hiefer Kabalarian

Hello, Elockid. I see that User:Hiefer Kabalarian has been tagged as a sockpuppet of User:AndresHerutJaim. Since you are the one who indefinitely blocked User:Hiefer Kabalarian, I ask is it your finding that User:Hiefer Kabalarian is User:AndresHerutJaim, or did you block User:AndresHerutJaim because he is tied to a different registered account? Flyer22 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I blocked Heifer Kabalarian as a sock of AHJ. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. I didn't see a recent sockpuppet case on that user and so I wondered. I'm not familiar with that user or his sockpuppets (other than having come across the User:Hiefer Kabalarian account), and I wondered if maybe he (as User:Hiefer Kabalarian) is the sockpuppet of a different editor that I'm familiar with. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid

Hello Elockid,

Can you please move these categories for me? Users cannot move the categories and can you help?

Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I can't move Categories either. I can only move the talk pages of the corresponding Category though. :( Elockid ^(Talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? Are there any kind of move requests possible for categories to be moved? And where should I post that request? Jaqeli (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would try HotCat. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And can you for example delete the categories? I will create the new categories and could you delete the older ones? Jaqeli (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete the categories once their empty. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll sort them out first and let you know when they're empty to delete them. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid, these three are now empty. Please delete them. Jaqeli (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious proxies

These IP addresses ([1] and [2] appear to be from proxy servers. They have been doing very nonconstructive and dispruptive edits. As far as I know, such proxy server IPs must be blocked immediately. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting the information that those are proxies? Elockid ^(Talk) 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Please see under Services. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that how they determine proxies is incorrect. While it looks like they've got some correct, there have been occasions where they haven't and this looks like the case. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious activity

Dear Sir. I think I am one of the contributors using one or another of the above mentioned lines at times. I am not so profoundly knowledgeable about Wikipedia's procedures but I believe revealing personal information about others is a breach of privacy and should be impeded. Moreover, I assume, if there is a possibility, this violation should be sanctioned. Thank you very much. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though there is an outing policy, I don't think that this would apply here. Since you have been editing from an IP, your location can be more easily determined. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

move...

Hi Elockid,

Can you please move Chosroid Dynasty to Chosroid dynasty? Just little "d" is needed. Jaqeli (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elockid. Jaqeli (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request - UTRS

Hey Elockid,

When you have a moment could you take a look at UTRS #10595 regarding this proxy block? Cheers,--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left an additional note as well.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have clarified my statement a little. Sorry about that. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AmirSurfLera/AndresHerutJaim

Hi, Special:Contributions/AmirSurfLera looks like it could be another another AndresHerutJaim sock editing the same articles as previous socks e.g.[4][5][6]. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not AHJ but it is a user who has edited before. I'm not sure if they were blocked for sockpuppetry or indeffed blocked but if memory serves me, I believe this user has been blocked before. I just can't quite point my finger who this is, but they are definitely not new. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nancy Drew series

Hi there. Would you like me to recreate the stub article for this deleted Nancy Drew series, or would it only attract more attention from the banned editor? I've no interest in Nancy Drew, god knows, but I'd add it to the Template:Nancy Drew, maybe others would be interested in expanding. If you think it's a good idea, please let me know, or perhaps create it as a user subpage, for me. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome to recreate the article. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Could you please userfy it for me and I'll try to get to it this weekend? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request:

Can you check these two users please because they're suspected sockpuppets of Jakandsig:

JakIIDax (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Kaboom! RogerRedAnt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Please. ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 20:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he can take a look at them without a new SPI case being opened. 91.184.0.80 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JakIIDax is a

Confirmed sock and Kaboom! RogerRedAnt is

Possible/

Likely. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, the above is a webhost and I took care of that. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm happy! (=D) ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 21:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Feel free to keep me updated. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access request

Hey Elockid, would it be possible to revoke talk page access for ASIAN SUPREMACY? I just reverted a blatant misuse of the unblock request. Thanks in advance. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Hi Elockid, can you please archive the talk page of Georgians? It's too long and could you archive it's talk page and after that turn on the automatic archiving on it's talk page? Jaqeli (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done much page archiving (except for my own talk page) so I don't think I'm the right person to ask. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whom should I ask then? Jaqeli (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ask the operators of the archive bots. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFavonian/GiantSnowgilr

Any idea who the master is? Giant Snowman 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to be Finnedi (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Giant Snowman 19:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open sock accounts case

FYI there is an open sock account case involving widewindow Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Widewindow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking 188.67.0.0/16 for a day

Hello! Could you please unblock 188.67.0.0/16 for a day or two or allow account creation from the range? A Finnish Wikipedia user is unable to create a SUL account by the name of Jiwe because of the block. Otherwise I think that the block is warranted – unfortunately. --Pxos (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also told the user about the ACC so he might request for an account. Could you make sure that the poor fellow succeeds in creating the account Jiwe on the English Wikipedia? --Pxos (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ACC doesn't work because Jiwe has already unified his Finnish account as SUL. The range block is preventing the automatic creation of the account here as he browses the English Wikipedia using his SUL account and the block prevents him from creating an account by hand. You will have to lift the block entirely I think. --Pxos (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) FYI the Finnish account (Jiwe that is) was created in 2011 but had only ever made two edits (on the Finnish WP in 2013) and wasn't really "activated" until after Finnedi was blocked (I assume the range block has something to do with that account and its multiple socks; correct me if I'm wrong though), when the person behind the account suddenly developed an almost desperate urge to edit the English WP (but not the Finnish WP, because the user still only has two edits in article space there). An existing account on en-WP by the same name proved to be an obstacle though, and by the time that account was usurped the IP-range the user operates from had been blocked. Thomas.W ^talk 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one am assuming good faith here. I do not think that a sockpuppeteer would ask advice from the user Doctree, asking to have a global SUL account for Jiwe, asking usurpation on the Finnish Wikipedia and trying to establish a SUL account just to be blocked in a few days when the checkusers discover the sinister plans. I do not know anything about the Finnedi case. --Pxos (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thomas.W, I can't say who the rangeblock is intended for, but it is not who you think it is. —DoRD (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my bad. Thomas.W ^talk 16:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC) (discreetly bowing out of the discussion ...)[reply]

And there is no "desperate need to edit" anything. The poor man just wants a SUL account like everybody else. The usurped account and now the range blocks are preventing him. Accusations and allegations are not very helpful and shouldn't be offered as "information". --Pxos (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was information that could have been valuable, which I'm sure you would agree with if you had seen what has been happening here over the past few days. Thomas.W ^talk 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC) (having links to animal porn sites posted all over the place in your name, with fake signatures, isn't fun, and would most probably p*ss even you off...)[reply]

Is there a way to perhaps coordinate a short term unblock so he can get his enwiki username, then quickly reimpose the block? I am not able to create the account in such a way that it can be unified in the usual way (I believe that the password must match and giving me the password in order to create the account would compromise it). Or is there a possible way for an enwiki or fiwiki administrator to give Jiwe a temporary block exemption to allow the process to complete? DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 17:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP block exemptions are for registered users. There is no-one now at the address "Jiwe" on English Wikipedia. Someone has to create the account first. Jiwe has said to me (on Fi-Wiki) that the ACC process does not work for him because he has already created the unified account, which in turn causes a conflict here. --Pxos (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't someone just create the account here and then ask a steward to unify them, if necessary, here? Unblocking the range is something I would like to avoid if at all possible. —DoRD (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well why don't you do it? I don't want to create accounts for someone else. I have spent some time on this matter helping Jiwe and if the block is not lifted then I would like the blocking admin or some other functionary of the English Wikipedia to help us on the matter. So why don't you do it? --Pxos (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to look into this via irc. In this case, the best solution would be for someone else to create the account for him in the same way that the ACC does, emailing him a random password that he can then change to his own and connect with his SUL. Once the account is made and the password changed, he can use Special:MergeAccount on a wiki where his SUL exists to unify the enwiki account. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per DoRD's suggestion above and Ajraddatz's instructions, I will create the account and leave a message on Jiwe;s fiwiki talk page. I think my current rights will let me override the antispoof. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 18:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to create Jiwe on enWP but can only get: Account creation error - Cannot create account: the requested username is already taken in the unified login system. My account creator flag is not sufficient to create the account when there is an SUL conflict. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 18:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In normal circumstances Jiwe's account would be automatically created for him when he comes here logged in as Jiwe. Now it is not possible because of the block. The powers that be are unwilling to lift the block even if it has been established that it causes real damage and they are referring the matter to stewards or Messieurs Someone Else. The stewards return the matter to the local administrators. --Pxos (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the matter here because there's nothing that we can do about it. It also seems that the SUL creation error can't be overridden, so the solution left would be for Jiwe to create an account on enwiki with a different username, and then request that account be renamed to Jiwe through WP:CHU. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can email the 'crat list, refer to background, the initial usurp, mention the serious problem that necessitates the block, and this discussion and ask that they act promptly. I should be able to create the temporary account that can then be changed to Jiwe. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER

The easiest way to solve the problem would be for Jiwe to log in to fi-WP on a computer with an IP-address that isn't caught in a range block (at a public library, at work or wherever), and then, from the same computer, go to en-WP to have the account here automatically created for him. It might be a bit inconvenient for him, but it doesn't risk causing problems here, unlike lifting the range block for a day or two... Thomas.W ^talk 19:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is now resolved (thanks Pakaran!) - The account Jiwe has been created and an email sent to him with a temporary password. To unify the account, he will need to change that password to match his SUL, and then go to fi:Special:MergeAccount to connect them. Then he'll be good to go :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem. I'm glad I was able to help provide a solution that didn't involve being exposed to a day or more of vandalism from the range. Pak aran 19:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if this kind of situation presents itself in the future, it is a bureaucrat that should be contacted, not an administrator? --Pxos (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I had originally thought that sysops could override the error when creating an account reserved for SUL, but that can only be done by bureaucrats when renaming accounts. For future reference, the solution here is to make an account with a temporary username, rename it to the SUL-taken name, and then connect it by ensuring the same password and Special:MergeAccount. Pretty complicated just to make an account :S Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think so, yes. Obviously, I can't say that every crat would have handled this as I do (and I'm not aware of a prior occurrence), but it seems like a least-bad solution for the moment. Renames burden the system to a small extent, but with zero edits, ~~it really is small AFAIK~~ is so small as to be negligible, per further discussions. Pak aran 19:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Now you just have to hope that you can talk to a good crat, not a bad crat. If someone were to get responses like "blocks cannot be lifted, you might be a vandal yourself, renaming overwhelms the system, go to the public library or go to hell while you're at it", they might be somewhat perplexed. Thanks to each and everyone for their help! It's great that the problem could be solved so easily after all without touching the block. --Pxos (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't work out for Jiwe. He cannot log in the English Wikipedia because of the block. He has given up all hope as you can read here. --Pxos (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiwe might be trying to log in as "Jiwe temp" and create a new account by that name not realising that the account has been renamed as "Jiwe". Is the password for Jiwe or Jiwe temp? --Pxos (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jiwe. After I renamed him, the password should have worked with the new account (you can check my log, but it's a bit confusing since the name in the account creation entry was changed by the rename a short time later). Unless an soft block with account creation blocked also blocks the use of an account created by others, I don't see why he is unable to log in. I'm not involved enough in account creation to be sure of whether that's the case. Pak aran 01:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the email he received would have given the name as "Jiwe temp", since it was sent at the time of creation. So, he needs to use that password, but the username Jiwe, to be clear. Pak aran 01:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be that the user has only tried the user name "Jiwe temp". I have tried to persuade him to give this one more try. There are five contributing factors in this case: 1) wrong initial advice; 2) the original Jiwe as an obstacle that had to be usurped and moved away; 3) the fact that Jiwe created a unified SUL account before he had a new account on en-wiki, resulting in the failure of the ACC system; 4) the range block that prevented him from loggin in himself; 5) Jiwe's failed attempt to log in as "Jiwe temp" here, because that was the username he got in the email from the bureaucrat. Dreadful. I hope he doesn't give up now. --Pxos (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiwe has reported that everything is in order. He was able to log in as "Jiwe" and unify it with his SUL. Thanks Pakaran! --Pxos (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I didn't (give up), 'cause now everything is working ("Login unification complete!") fine for me. Thank you very much for you all: Pxos, Pakaran, Doctree, Ajraddatz, DoRD, and Thomas.W for your contribution (and 35 edits only on this page so far!). Now I can continue my "almost desperate urge to edit the English WP" ;-), although I don't remember exactly anymore which "Leningrad Cowboys" related articles I was originally going to edit ;(. And Thomas.W, I don't envy you since it looks like you have seen so much bad behavior here, that your toleration level is somewhat lowered. But I can assure you that not all us Finns are evil. As Pxos told, there were so many overlapping obstacles here, that hopefully through this case there were some lessons learnt and similar cases go a little smoothlier in future. BR, Jiwe, "the guinea pig of the decade" (by Pxos). --Jiwe (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I apologize for any inconvenience that the block has caused. I don't really mind if we coordinate a specific time for an unblock. However the coordination will have to be done privately and unfortunately will have to be done after the upcoming Easter Sunday (I won't have time until then). Echoing DoRD's concerns, there are some serious problems with this range so I would like to leave the unblock as short as possible. In the meantime, I hope you will find an alternate way to solve this problem. Thanks a bunch, Pakaran, Doctree, Ajraddatz, DoRD, and Thomas.W for helping out. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the block is anon only, it will not be a factor in whether Jiwe can log on to enwp. Hopefully (if they use the correct username) the problem has been solved, thanks to Pakaran. —DoRD (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaWiki program should be configured so as to allow keeping individual IP addresses unblocked inside a comprehensive range block. By the way, as all administrators know or ought to know, range blocks are liable to cause significant collateral damage to good users. This issue has undoubtedly been discussed here before. Have you guys found any solutions to this beside the ACC? Range blocks prevent people from editing or creating accounts when they happen to use the same ISP as the vandals. As we don't have the ACC process on fi-wiki, we usually lift the range block altogether when asked by email and then place it back again only after the vandalism resumes. Sometimes we have even tried allowing account creation from the address range when it seems clear that the vandals are mainly editing from IP adresses. But I guess we have more options since the traffic on fi-wiki is much slower than on en-wiki. The administrators are able to deal with the vandals quickly. --Pxos (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have successful launch. I'm not sure the standard welcome message suffices in this case :). Pak aran 15:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 250: / Line 250: @@
 :::Jiwe has reported that everything is in order. He was able to log in as "Jiwe" and unify it with his SUL. Thanks Pakaran! --[[User:Pxos|Pxos]] ([[User talk:Pxos|talk]]) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
+::::I'm glad I didn't (give up), 'cause now everything is working ("Login unification complete!") fine for me. Thank you very much for you all: [[User:Pxos|Pxos]], [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]], [[User:Doctree|Doctree]], [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]], [[User:DoRD|DoRD]], and [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] for your contribution (and 35 edits only on this page so far!).  Now I can continue my "almost desperate urge to edit the '''English''' WP" ;-), although I don't remember exactly anymore which "Leningrad Cowboys" related articles I was originally going to edit ;(. And [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]], I don't envy you since it looks like you have seen so much bad behavior here, that your toleration level is somewhat lowered. But I can assure you that not all us Finns are evil. As [[User:Pxos|Pxos]] told, there were so many overlapping obstacles here, that hopefully through this case there were some lessons learnt and similar cases go a little smoothlier in future. BR, Jiwe, "the guinea pig of the decade" (by [[User:Pxos|Pxos]]). --[[User:Jiwe|Jiwe]] ([[User talk:Jiwe|talk]]) 15:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 :Hi folks. I apologize for any inconvenience that the block has caused. I don't really mind if we coordinate a specific time for an unblock. However the coordination will have to be done privately and unfortunately will have to be done after the upcoming Easter Sunday (I won't have time until then). Echoing DoRD's concerns, there are some serious problems with this range so I would like to leave the unblock as short as possible. In the meantime, I hope you will find an alternate way to solve this problem. Thanks a bunch, [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]], [[User:Doctree|Doctree]], [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]], [[User:DoRD|DoRD]], and [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] for helping out. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Elockid|Elockid]]</font></b></span>   <sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Elockid|Talk]]</font>)</sup> 12:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)