Jump to content

User talk:Elockid/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Blocking our IP

Hi Elockid,

I am RadhaKrishna, wikimedia Bangalore (India) SIG chair. I have been contributing to wikipedia (English & my mother tongue Telugu). Recently for an article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Media_Player" that I created, "speedy deletion" was marked. I got notification, mentioning that I can stop the speedy deletion by deleting the "speedy deletion", & justify in talk page why you want to stop deletion. I have done the same. I have lot of information on that article (I am specialist on this subject). so in the article talk page, I requested for some time to improve the article.

Now this IP is shared by many people in my place. one person who is trying to create a login after a WikiAcademy session from me, got the following error message which refers to my contribution.

Cannot create account
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Account creation from this IP address (117.192.64.0/19) has been temporarily restricted. This is probably due to persistent vandalism from the IP address you are editing from, which may be shared by many people if you are connected to the Internet via aproxy server (used by most schools and corporations and some Internet service providers) or dial-up access.
To enquire about the block or request that an account be created for you, please send an e-mail tounblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org with details of your IP address, the administrator who blocked you and the reason they gave (this information is available below). If you are requesting an account, please include in your e-mail the account name you wish. We apologise for any inconvenience caused to any innocent users.
Information about the block: account creation from this IP address (117.192.64.0/19) was blocked by Elockid, who gave the reason Continued abuse right after the block. Users wishing to edit should log in register at WP:ACC..
Return to Wikipedia:CRYSTAL


If you still think I am doing wrong, please go ahead and delete the article (and if you want my login too).

There's no need to delete you're log in. You're fine. :) But regarding this edit, I strongly encourage you in providing a reason why you want to keep the article in your edit summary. It's sometimes frowned upon to remove PRODs from an article you created, but policy does not prohibit it. Just a tip, asking friends or creating sockpuppets is even more frowned upon and not allowed. Also, if the person after you wants an account, they can go to WP:ACC. This will allow them to bypass the block. It's blocked since there's persistent problems coming from your range. I believe this is the third block. I hope this helps. If you have any other concerns, please msg me back. Elockid (Talk) 13:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Help

I know we got to know each other in a very unfortunate way but could you please help me out with a case of block evasion and potential sockpuppetry? I stopped reverting as I do not want to resume edit warring. Thanks.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if you need anything else. Elockid (Talk) 23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect Harvard University

In mid-November, you semi-protected Harvard University. In the article's Talk page, some of us have expressed a desire to have the article unprotected since semi-protection is not supposed to be a permanent or long-lasting state unless absolutely necessary. If there is a spike in vandalism that we can't handle, we can always request the semi-protection be reinstated. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid (Talk) 13:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Elockid (Talk) 17:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I probably should've come here first, but I've requested it be re-protected at RFPP. The page has been vandalized about a dozen times since protection was lifted. Hot StopUTC 07:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No problems at all with regards to changing the protection. But not able to do anything at the moment or probably the next week or two. I'll make a comment on RfPP that I have no problems. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 14:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas by population

Hi Elockid

You rightly rolled it back to the edit by JRobin08 of yesterday, but I think his edit is also vandalism and I have reverted that too, back to your own previous edit. I had already warned JRobin08 several days ago about hoax edits. He needs to be stopped. -- Alarics (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the info. Elockid (Talk) 13:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Hiya! Would very much appreciate your thoughts here, there's a recent issue concerning the articles accuracy. Cheers!TalkWoe90i 00:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hi! Since you've been involved in the Gazifikator sock puppet investigation, could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gazifikator? Thank you! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 13:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Range block query

See User talk:70.40.143.36 regarding a question about the range you recently blocked, and whether the disruption leading up to the block included the smaller allocated range containing that particular IP address. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

There's some unconstructive edits but I've modified the block a bit. The /22 range should be free to edit now. Elockid (Talk) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Old or new LTA?

I'm wondering if ChadBrunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his socks are someone we're familiar with (like Grawp or Tile join).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't ring a bell. Might be a new one. Elockid (Talk) 05:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Other CUs say he IP hops and/or uses coordinated attacks; does that sound familiar?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this is Tile join, whose recent socks have been more interested in commenting out people's talk pages rather than what this user has done. Calabe1992 05:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I highly suspect it's Grawp or a similar LTA, based on behavorial evidence.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems more like it. Calabe1992 05:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
They're not editing through open proxies and from what I can remember, none of the accounts that I saw were editing in Grawp's location. To me at least, it doesn't look like a 4chan attack. Maybe some friends or whatever. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 17:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Could you please bring back the associated talk page as well? Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 16:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done and you're welcome. Elockid (Talk) 16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Andriabenia

Hi. It was interesting to see how this all unravelled with all the new socks. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Also, feel free to stop by next time if you think you've seen a sock. Prolly will save you some time. Elockid (Talk) 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that advice. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You can try asking me, I might know it. Or you could post a message at the SPI talk page, IRC, or something to see if any of the clerks or CUs recognize the sock. Elockid (Talk) 13:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks a lot of more GeorgianJorjadze. I've blocked the sock (not checked) indef and reset GeorgianJorjadze's block. Elockid (Talk) 22:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Good to know that there's some watchers. :) Elockid (Talk) 01:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Tumanishvili, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (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) 11:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

and Happy New Year too! —SpacemanSpiff 13:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the fibre-optic speed turnaround! —SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Elockid (Talk) 14:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

unfixes

Hi,

There seems to be s.t. wrong w your vandal fixes. This[1] restored an obscenity, this[2] a red-link photo (deleted vandalism, perhaps?), this[3] vandalism. I haven't checked through all your recent edits, but the Saakashvili ones were still there when I came across the article. (The band had been fixed.) — kwami (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. For the first one, I'm not familiar with either of those alphabets, so I didn't know that there was an obscenity. Third one, was trying to fix further, but it was already done before I had a chance. Good eye. Elockid (Talk) 22:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken block

I have unblocked and apologised. I was aiming at the user whom he nominated, but missed. How closely do you normally follow me? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I was in the process of blocking the Ip, to whom I have now given a 48 hour block, and carelessly hit the wrong user ID. Mea culpa. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent blocks

I see your trying to deal with 95.114.0.0/16-2x, which is actually the whole /13 a webhost maybe just better flat out hit the /16...unless there is damage I don't know about by actually legitimate users. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a /17 range based on the activity. But I'm making smaller blocks to minimize the collateral. Elockid (Talk) 16:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Webhosts usually only need to be blocked if abusive anyway, smaller the better probally, so i'll leave that to you. If your interested there is a discussion at WT:OP about range blocking webhosts if your interested. (not that it's pretty much dead already :P) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Block

Hey, just wondering if 94.43.229.183 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) was meant to be a {{checkuserblock}}. We have an unblock request on unblock-en-l, but I can't see anything to indicate a proxy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's meant to be an OP block. I double checked with Bsadowski1 last night on it. Elockid (Talk) 15:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it might be something obvious i'm missing, so I'll give him a poke. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Talk:China due to "sockpuppetry"

You protected the page with the implicit rationale that all the recent IP editors on the page are the same person, and that particular person is Instantnood. I strongly disagree to this line of thought: the IPs come from 3 IP ranges belonging to 3 different ISPs [4] [5] [6], and the "behavioral chain" from Instantnood to what people claim are "his" sockpuppets today is far from continuous. There may be a cabal of anonymous editors acting in unison, but claiming they're the same person seems rather unreasonable. Even SchmuckyTheCat, with his usual vigilance against anyone whom he thinks is an Instantnood sock, agrees that they're unlikely to be the same person.[7]

I'll make a dummy log entry to say that the protection is done in good faith, but the sockpuppetry claim is invalid. (Please respond on my talk page, thanks!) Deryck C. 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The most disruptive, via revert warring and filibustering, IP on those pages is probably Instantnood. But not all of the are even though some other IPs are still disruptive. Instantnood's ability to hop networks, and the prevalence of HK ISPs to use rotating proxies so single editor contributions don't accumulate under a single IP (for even a few minutes) is becoming problematic for long term discussion and other users participation. Deryck, beyond Instantnood, why are so many HK editors belligerent and without usernames? The level of disruption is high enough that I believe the best longer term solution may be an anon-block (can still make a username, can still login with a username, cannot edit as IP) on HK IPs. I'm really interested in how you see an exit to this problem that grows more intractable as the project continues to mature. (Feel welcome to move this discussion somewhere more relevant.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Deryck, beyond Instantnood, why are so many HK editors belligerent and without usernames? The reason, as I said before, is that the current editorial stance of Wikipedia on Greater China-related articles are in many areas against what Hong Kong people generally believe. I guess that, in terms of editorial viewpoint, you'd classify me as "belligerent" as with those IP editors, the only difference being that I'm well aware of Wikipedia etiquette and conventions, and have the stomach to walk away when everyone else's consensus is to do something I think is utterly stupid. Deryck C. 17:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
So how exactly do you explain why suddenly a flood of Hong Kong users have got involved in the discussions, when there was only one Hong Kong IP editor before? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I think SchmuckyTheCat once told me he saw in some forum that someone advocated blind reverting of all his edits, so I'm guessing someone's been canvassing off-wiki? Deryck C. 18:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead1 also pointed out that I made the mistake of bringing the two protection expiry dates to the same time (tomorrow) while making my dummy log entry. Feel free re-extend the protection of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)‎ if you want to. Deryck C. 18:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you want to keep the discussion here, so I'll copy this message and cross-post. Please let me know where you want to continue. The ISP isn't the strongest indicator of who's editing who as one person could easily connect to multiple networks. I've seen quite a number of sockpuppeteers on multiple ranges and ISPs. I tend to rely more on location than ISP. A really good example of a sockpuppeteer who I know, Vote (X) for Change uses quite a number of IPs from varying ISPs (Talk Talk, Virgin Media, BT, etc.). But you can tell it's them due to the behavior and location. Secondly, there are some gaps in the editing between the IPs, this increases the possibility that they are the same person editing behind multiple places. The timing of the edits, the target area, and location strongly suggests connection to each other. It could be meat per the forum post (I was not informed about this beforehand). But judging from the history I've seen along with what Schmucky has stated about the ability to IP hop, past experience with other socks who have similar/somewhat similar behavior and the information from the SPI report, socking looks like a plausible idea to me. Elockid (Talk) 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcusMaximus0

Says he is not Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze

Hi. Just letting you know that I restored GeorgianJorjadze's access to his talk page this morning, in response to an e-mail request he sent me. I added yet another clear explanation on his talk page regarding the issues he must address before his existing one-month block can be terminated early. I'm watching his talk page, and if he posts there inappropriately again, I'll repent of my folly and re-block his talk page. — Richwales 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. GeorgianJorjadze is saying that he's still unable to edit due to (apparently) an IP address block imposed by you. I looked at the block log but was unable to find anything current for him, but I could easily be missing something. This was a few hours ago, and maybe the problem has been cleared up by now, but I wanted to be sure you knew about it in case the user didn't use the template properly and you didn't get notified. — Richwales 15:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I hardblocked him because he was socking. I've unblocked the IP now. Elockid (Talk) 20:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Elockid,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recurring vandal?

Ninja'd. :( Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Satt

Gtbilisi, quacking within one edit. Still worth a look at CU I suppose. CMD (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look later on today when I'm on my main account. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm a homophobe. The doesn't explain the map changes and the removal of the Asia templates though. I won't revert now, as I earlier fully reverted per the blocked users can't edit policy, but if it's not Satt II, the rest of the edit could be taken into consideration. I'll AGF on the PA is it's actually a new user I suppose. CMD (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
They're editing through proxies (no big surprise there). Coupled with the proxy use, the personal attack, their UA and the editing area I'm going to say that there's a 99% chance it's them. Elockid (Talk) 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited List of agglomerations by population, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyallpur (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, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Per request

One more. In general, you might want to keep an eye on this link, originally posted here, for new instances of this (it's how I found the edit, anyway). It Is Me Here t / c 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! That's really helpful. Elockid (Talk) 18:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Jaymax0238. Can we get this link feature turned off? NawlinWiki (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you tell PeterSymonds about such accounts he will Lock them for you. It Is Me Here t / c 12:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll go bother Peter when I'm on IRC or Bsadowski1.
I blocked the proxy that Jaymax0238 has been editing. Didn't find any additional accounts. Not sure if we get the link feature turned off. Elockid (Talk) 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
They're now coming through IPs, but my recent updates to filter 422 and Nawlin's 56 seem to be catching them all. See 78.47.41.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 198.168.27.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Another account: Qlark Cable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Handled. Elockid (Talk) 14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Filter updated (again) to protect against the obfuscated CSS. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Elockid (Talk) 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
And yet another: Klaqueur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (Updated the filters again.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
[8] It Is Me Here t / c 22:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. Elockid (Talk) 23:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This has come back – see thread 1, thread 2 and diff. It Is Me Here t / c 21:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Handled. Thanks. Elockid (Talk) 22:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

user:chevara puppet

Hello Elockid. I see that you blocked chevara as a sock of Joe Circus. Should we not add it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joe Circus or its archive? Garycompugeek (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Garycompugeek. Regarding Chevara, I didn't intend to block the account as a sock of JC. It came up as being related to another group of accounts. They were all using open proxies, so they could be related. Anyways, having a tag is enough IMO. Elockid (Talk) 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Asian American infobox discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox Image discussion 2012. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Varghesejacob

I stalk Moonriddengirl's page quite a lot and was looking at any way as a comment there about copyright bots caught my eye in my watch list as I'm in the process of getting a copyright bot up and running. Anyway I took a look at this account and blocked as it was quacking loudly enough for me. Hope you don't mind (only realised you were an admin afterwards). Is my first ever block so hope I got it all right and I'm more than happy for you to reverse or otherwise change anything. More on my reasoning on Moonriddengirl's talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Gansler page, redirect to Gensler (disambiguation)

You have deleted a page "Gansler". I'd like to add a redirection page named "Gansler", pointing to "Gensler (disambiguation)". Gansler, Gensler, Gaensler, Gänsler are a bit ambiguous, and IMHO some of them would benefit from a shared disambiguation page.

Do you object to my adding this dismabiguation page?

Thank you for your kind attention.

--AndersW 21:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No objections. Elockid (Talk) 21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thx. Done. --AndersW 21:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email for an important message. RolandR (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


Sneaky racist vandalism

You may be interested in this ANI report. RolandR (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

HelloTheanonymous3 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

vandalism

According to this Wikipedia:Vandalism as far as I can understand removal can be vandalism. Why should be me the restorer the one to get blocked and not the remover? I would like to have the attention of wikipedia comunity on this issue for a clear answer.Clicklander (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not considered vandalism because to be considered vandalism there has to be evidence that the removal as a "deliberate attempt" to harm the encyclopedia. I don't see a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia, rather a content dispute. Issues like these are handled on other message boards such as WP:ANI/WP:AN or WP:AN3. Elockid (Talk) 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.Clicklander (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please let me know if there are other concerns. Elockid (Talk) 19:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Should you kindly look into my request then I would be greatly thankful. AmandaParker (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

With regards to Baboon43 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who claims that his / her IP address changes "constantly," if that is the case then why 70.54.66.158 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) shows up as static (See here). Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't tend to rely on whether or not Whatismyip or other similar sites lists IPs as dynamic or static IPs as they are unreliable. Most ISPs are dynamic, some more than others. From what I know, Bell Canada is dynamic. Elockid (Talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Since Baboon43 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is still claiming to be a "newbie" and "naive", please, check the following edits:
They are all the same and done by the very same user (sock-puppets?). AmandaParker (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any connection between Samia et and Baboon43. Samia et's edits for the most part are not constructive or helpful from any standpoint. Baboon43's as well as the IP's edits would be considered to some to be at least trying to improve the encyclopedia. The motive for editing looks different between the two. Also, if 70.54.66.158 is Baboon43, then it would seem Baboon43 has registered as the IP stopped editing after Baboon43 has registered. This then wouldn't be a case of sockpuppetry as there was no misuse of accounts. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip#Comments_by_other_users

Hi. I think you will be interested in the comment I placed in the subject section (regarding the 25 March 2012 report if it gets archived). Sorry for its lateness.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012 - Query

Hello Elockid, I'm just wondering...... What happened to my talk page, your edit summary were a bit confusing (this is about you edit yesterday). Thanks --Chip123456 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary for your talk page is one of the default summaries given for protection. There was a spike of unconstructive editing (your's was one of the pages targeted). To prevent the IP hopper from vandalizing any further, I protected your talk page. Elockid (Talk) 22:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes I know now. Thank you very much for the reply and help. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Elockid (Talk) 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for going back and reverting the vandalism to my talk page by 68.5.237.70 after you blocked him. He has now made the shortlist of IPs I patrol. Meters (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to let me if they come back. Elockid (Talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blackcurrents (talk · contribs)

I missed your post to this user's talk before I posted my SPI. If you would like me to rescind my report, let me know. Or you can close it yourself as a non-starter. Thanks Tiderolls 16:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

PearlandPete sock block

In the IRC help channel User:PearlandPete is protesting their block as a sockpuppet. While I appreciate you have no obligation to do so, can you confirm whether User:Reaper Eternal is correct in stating You are blocked for being a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet so that we can sort this out. Thanks. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a CU imposed block. I'll usually mark those with {{checkuserblock}} or add CU block/similar forms in the block reasoning. If you see Tnxman's decline request, that's basically the background for the block. Elockid (Talk) 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the quick reply. --Mrmatiko (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Regional power

Hello Elockid. Could you please semi-protect the article Regional power? There is one anonymous IP user adding and deleting information with the wrong sources and won't listen to us. Three different users have reverted him in the last days and he just won't listen. I also suspect he might be another registered user trying to avoid using his main account, so a semi-protection could be really useful. Thanks in advance for your help. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid (Talk) 02:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Need a Checkuser

Ney Elockid, need some help. Got an editor (TruthBeTold161) claiming that another editor (Truthbtold112) uploaded a picture that he holds the copyright to. It is kinda obvious that the editor is the same person (look at the usernames) and is trying to game the system (think DUCK). TruthBeTold161 also edited from 107.4.79.58, which geolocates to Naples, Florida (via Comcast Cable Internet). Can you run a checkuser on the two accounts and the IP and see if they are the same person? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Risker took care of this. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UTRS

I've approved your account. Thanks for volunteering!--v/r - TP 13:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Elockid (Talk) 13:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism from blocked users

Some of the IP's you blocked earlier today/yesterday are vandalizing their talk pages with edits like this. Are they all the same person? Should all of their blocks be changed to disallow talk page? MuZe and I have gotten the ones that have actually vandalized so far. ☮Soap☮ 23:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the proxy blocks I made are from the same person (the IPs with the anti-Islam agenda). It's unrelated to the one above though. I suppose revoking talk page access isn't a bad idea. This sockpuppeteer has a history of abusing the talk page. Elockid (Talk) 23:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop Outing me. Thanx.}

Please stop Outing me. Thanx.

Posting socks of yours is not considered outing. Elockid (Talk) 02:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please block 81.94.201.130 (talk · contribs), related to the above. Calabe1992 02:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid (Talk) 02:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

Can I mail you the evidence which makes me think I am Agent X is a sock? I have noticed with every case I file he has gotten a little harder to catch as he reads all the evidence given. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Also can you ask AGK if this was a rangeblock [9] and if so how long was it set for. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. You can email me if you want. Regarding that case, I don't think AGK rangeblocked that IP. But I'll post on his talk page. Elockid (Talk) 17:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Sent, I am curious about the rangeblock as it would explain why there is a large gap in his editing contributions. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there has never been any or ever will rangeblocks for the Nangparbat's ISP. Elockid (Talk) 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
AGK's response. Elockid (Talk) 22:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, a new fellow has turned up,[10] might have been a sleeper, I am a little unsure if it worth filing a report as he has learned to keep his "rv Indian POV crap" edit summaries down Whats your take on him? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not him (no check done). Elockid (Talk) 23:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ACC

Hello, Elockid: We have a request at ACC which requires a CU, Deskana has taken a look at it and suggest we should have you take a look. you are the blocking user, ACC:75480, if you could Please and just leave a message on my talk if you think it OK to create or deny and I take care of it. thank you Mlpearc (powwow) 19:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll get to this as soon as my account is approved. Elockid (Talk) 19:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Approved [stwalkerster|talk] 19:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response.
@Mlpearc: looks good to go. Elockid (Talk) 20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help at ACC Mlpearc (powwow) 23:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Thanks! Elockid (Talk) 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

203.145.92.0/24

I was out in town today (been in Hong Kong for the last few weeks), tried to edit from mobile, and realised... I couldn't. My log-in cookie expired and I'm blocked for "block evasion" by Elockid.

I've therefore made a dummy block log entry to point users behind this blocked IP range to WP:Request an account. I understand the fears of Instantnood reincarnations, but this block is a bit ridiculous: you've blocked the main IP range of the largest mobile ISP of Hong Kong.

If you ever wonder why all Hong Kong anons are so disruptive, maybe that's why. In the future, if you issue a rangeblock, please keep collateral damage in mind and point affected users to places they can get help. Deryck C. 13:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, I always do check for collateral. I thought I already explained to you this block. Every IP block always has collateral. The history of this range shows that collateral isn't high at all. Have you even checked my logs for other rangeblocks? Here's some examples: 50.51.64.0/19, 50.51.16.0/20, 50.51.32.0/20, 116.48.80.0/20, 61.18.170.0/24, 70.6.128.0/17, 108.112.0.0/16, 68.26.0.0/17, 184.193.128.0/19, 118.21.64.0/19 (this one is even not necessary since the block message will direct them where to go), 109.249.192.0/18, 216.26.192.0/19 (another unnecessary one), 117.192.64.0/19, 110.33.0.0/19... I can name more if you wish. Elockid (Talk) 13:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Bros

Can you please protect Bros again against the Saint Artjunkie socks? Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Also took care of the accounts. Elockid (Talk) 22:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Indeed when the duck quacks so hard, bothering with SPI may be redundant. --Muhandes (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect page move identified

Hi Elockid, Sorry to bother you. I raised an issue at Wikipedia:Help desk#Article been moved without following request for move procedures, following an identification of a page move of Leyla Aliyeva (presenter) to Leyla Əliyeva (presenter), which apparently goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Daniel Callegaro (talk · contribs) who did the move is relatively new, and may not have been aware of such technicalities; and as I'm treating the move as an accidental AGF, I have left him a polite note so that he is aware from now on. Is there any chance you could re-revert the move, when you get a spare moment? Thank you in advance - Wesley☀Mouse 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like David Biddulph (talk · contribs) beat me to it. Elockid (Talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah well, thank you anyway. It is appreciated, nevertheless. Wesley☀Mouse 01:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
If you need anything else, feel free to leave me a message. Elockid (Talk) 01:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Could you clear up the comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowers of Romance please? My notes on what i'm confused on are there. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Waycross, Georgia

Any way to get a temporary Page Protection on that page? It's under siege from several IPs, and I'm having a hard time keeping up :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid (Talk) 01:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you for the hasty intervention. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Elockid (Talk) 01:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of Mr.Orbach

Hi Elockid. I'm just wondering about your block of User:Mr. Orbach. I don't agree that his edits were vandalism - they appear to be in good faith, though against policy. As a new user, I would have expected things to go a bit differently there. Would appreciate it if you could have a quick review of the block. WormTT · (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure they were made in good faith yet. I did a search for the play with the title of "Mississippi Delta" written by Terrence McNally and found no result. It's not really reliable to base off information on an article, but according to the article, Terrence McNally, he didn't write a play with that title. According to his official website, it doesn't show that he wrote that play either. The actors listed who are written to have starred in the play such as Robert De Niro or Ben Vereen, I can find no indication that they starred in the play based on IBDB. Based on this, it looks like a hoax to me. I am not opposed to unblocking though. Elockid (Talk) 15:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah fair enough, I'll shut up. I did a quick google search and there were matching terms, but looking at it, they were about other plays that were not actually written by McNally, listed with his. Excuse me while I skulk into a corner ;) WormTT · (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

75.164.207.34 and 71.222.80.239

An IP you have recently blocked,

71.222.80.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has returned as

75.164.207.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obviously the same individual. I don't know what you normally do in clear cases like this, but just thought I'd give you the heads up. Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And blocked. Let me know if the come back. Elockid (Talk) 15:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
75.164.207.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, same old same old. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Reblocked. Elockid (Talk) 23:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sooner rather than later request (if you don't mind)

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. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I see you just blocked our friend - I was about to. I'm taking a break shortly, good luck with him! Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Luckily for us though, they're being of great assistance in identifying and blocking open proxies. Elockid (Talk) 13:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That's ironic, but good! Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elockid/Archive_9&oldid=1143538855"