User talk:Elockid/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FOJ IP

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)

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

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)

Rangeblock

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)

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

Identifying proxies

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)

Amiram Goldblum

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)

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)

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)

Lorch

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

Proxy block

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)

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

LGBT rhetoric

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)

Curiosity

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)

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. Fai zan 15:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User color display at top

Hey elcokid. meeting after a long time.

See {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:Elockid}}

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)

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

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

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

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)

El Clásico

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)

Stale CU Block (Email)

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)

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

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

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

A rangeblock with possible collateral/good faith editors caught

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

IP trolling

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)

Christmas Island

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)

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)

User Tan Meifen

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

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)

Reblocking on year-old blocked accounts...

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)

See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive13#Urgent request. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

New section

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)

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)

Agrippina, Countess von Zarnekau

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)

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

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)

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

Rangeblock?

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)

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

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)

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)

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

A barnstar for you!

	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)

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

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)

Email

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.

Block request

Block Special:Contributions/82.35.218.9 with at least one year, the user always editing vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.139 (talk • contribs)

I'm not an expert with this genre. Could you please explain what the vandalism is? Elockid ^(Talk) 17:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving Georgian people

Don't you think it was controversial to move Georgian people to Georgians without a proper Wikipedia:Requested moves, which be more appropriate and give people enough time to respond.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Page moves don't have to be discussed through the proper requested move procedure (people do this all the time). However, if an article has a history of move warring or edit warring in general or the article is a high profile article (this does not appear to be the case here), then it would be appropriate to go through the proper requested moves procedure. Note that the article was unilaterally moved on April 24, 2011 without any apparent attempt of discussion. If the requester was able to delete the redirect page, we would have the same outcome from the April move. If you're objecting the move or if anyone comes to me and requests to move back the article, then I will list the article for a requested move. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

New IP for Gunmetal Angel since block and range block

He's back with a new IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gunmetal_Angel. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock widened. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Another SPI for Gunmetal

Could you take a look here, please? [6] Thank you,-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Such similar ways of editing, protesting, and articles in common. The only difference I can see is that Metallican doesn't use profanity and become a hot head like Gunmetal. My guess is they are either the same guy playing an elaborate game or they know each other. Found it pretty weirldy conincidental that their socks edited the same article in the same day, not long after one of the socks was IP rangeblocked. In any case, thanks for handling it. I will do it better if there's a next time (with diffs and so forth). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they can be similar. I apologize if it seems like I'm being tough, but there's been discussion about some SPIs needing more evidence and there will be more delay if more evidence is needed. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see it as being tough, just trying to do it the way it should be done. Glad I was able to help. Next time, I will help more in line with how it should be done! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:ElockidAlt

This really your account? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nah, if it's my account, I'll link it with my main account. Thanks for the heads up. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but I thought I would double check just in case and they didn't seem to be doing anything nefarious at the moment. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

Elockid, can you please tell me if there is any way I can see all those articles that I've created?

Is there such thing on wiki which will show me those articles which was created by me since I registered in back in 2011? georgianJORJADZE 00:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, right here. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks alot. georgianJORJADZE 00:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

David Dephy

Elockid this article seems to be just a bio of him written probably by him as well.

I think the article should be deleted as it has no importance as such. What do you suggest? georgianJORJADZE 13:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If you really feel like the article should be deleted, you can submit an Articles for Deletion (AfD) or add the following to the page: {{prod}}. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added prod but nothing happened. Then I tried to submit it there but I think that I could not do it. My submission wasn't seen in the list. georgianJORJADZE 19:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

For PRODS, you have to give it some time. It won't get deleted right away. For AfDs, you can list them here. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

My submission is already there but it is not seen in the list. :( georgianJORJADZE 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What was it that I was missing? What exactly did I wrong and why my submission was not there? georgianJORJADZE 20:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's still not there. georgianJORJADZE 20:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You listed the entry at the bottom. It's supposed to be listed at the top (As of this post, it's number 2 at the list). You also need to put the following text on the discussion page: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Elockid ^(Talk) 20:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So the page name is what I want to be deleted. And what should I do with category? What category should there be like? georgianJORJADZE 20:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Elockid. I think I understood. georgianJORJADZE 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Np. Yes for the page name. For category, follow the criteria at Template:Afd3 starter. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way Elockid, I wanted to ask you. What happens when a user reached 10,000 or more edits? Do they get any status or something? And how do users become for example admins or whatever positions are here on wiki? georgianJORJADZE 20:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing really. You could give yourself a service award. If you want to become an admin, you need to go to WP:RfA. I must warn you though that the standards are very high and many users who have filed one do not pass. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

With my past records I'd say even if I try once sometime I won't have any chance. But thanks anyway Elockid. I appreciate your help and suggestions. georgianJORJADZE 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Dbachmann

Hello Elockid,

This user is constantly removing the referenced information from the articles and calls me a nationalist on my talk page. Here and here this user completely removed the sourced information without even discussing it. Can you please see this case and warn this user for such behaviour and protect those articles he seems to be without anything to say just removes all the sources. Thanks. GJ. GEORGIANJORJADZE 11:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not necessary at this point (there appears to be a discussion going on). This is a content dispute and it seems that consensus is against you at the moment. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

New problematic behavior from User:GeorgianJorjadze

Hi Elockid! I'm coming to you as you seem to be mentoring Georgian Jorjadze since his return here last month, and I hope you could explain to him that he cannot behave this way. I'm referring to his recent creation, Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty, where he pushes a very strong and unsourced POV regarding the origins of Georgia's main dynasty. Another user (User:The Emperor's New Spy) and I have confronted him on the talk page of the article. Not only has he reverted us (3 times in the last hour), he also shows n the talk page strong signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. When confronted with the fact that modern scholarly sources contradict his version, he dismissed them in favor of medieval primary sources. When asked to not edit-war, he insisted that we discuss first, even though he's reverting to his unsourced version. I remember trying to explain to him what WP:BRD means back in 2012, but now I give up. And I'm not even going into the mess his other family trees seem to have created in the last days, as I haven't had time to get into the particulars of each, but I notice a similar discussion happened at Talk:Family tree of ancient Georgian monarchs. Could you please help?Susuman77 (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well done Susuman. You have not even studied my work of the family trees and you're already bad-mouthing on me? Wouldn't it better if you saw my family trees but you, as always pointing your finger on me. GEORGIANJORJADZE 18:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the observations made by Susuman77 that GeorgianJorjadze has returned to editing with aggressive contentiousnous, ignoring or reverting concerns and edits introduced by other editors on articles about Georgian royalty, displaying signs of ownership by ignoring consensus and other editors until they give up attempting to contribute. There is also the reliance upon outdated and/or dubious sources to promote a POV as Susuman77 notes (for instance here: although it was indeed once widely believed that the Bagrationi were "the oldest dynasty in Europe", scholarship now confirms that the prince consort of Tamar of Georgia was himself improbably a Bagrationi, this claim is generally now considered debunked, since the Capets show unbroken legitimate male descent to their present day reigns in Spain and Luxembourg). Efforts to explain and engage are used to do end-runs rather than to achieve agreement on content or to correct noted errors and omissions. Most important is the flagrant defiance of consensus. FactStraight (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

GJ, this isn't the first complaint nor the only people who have complained either to me or pinged me about some of your editing. If this continues, you may be blocked again without further warning. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

Hey Elockid, as you have experience with this one in the past, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx? There's another on the same article that I suspect, but I haven't had the time yet to grab the diffs etc. Also, does a hard block on the IP/ 23 range have any collateral damage? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hardblock is not possible. CU results on the SPI page. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Elockid. —SpacemanSpiff 15:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

about Lynne Triplett article

Hello. My name is Niyazi Sonmez (DiGi), the husband of Ms. Triplett. I was wondering why my wife's article was deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.211.73.94 (talk • contribs)

Deliberate attempts to lie and mislead will not be tolerated. Further attempts will not be accepted. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your continued help, Elockid. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 17:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oversight

FYI: you now also have access to the private IRC channel #wikimedia-privacy. Trijnstel_talk 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)