User talk:Elockid/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Pontiac again

Nitishk.55. More? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it's him. Didn't find any others though but I'm sure there's more. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Also managed to find WilliamKliew (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 12:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we might have to start protecting like we did for NP earlier. I've done a few for ML, but not for MP recently. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Is User:Kuldiprana2012 another? Battle of Delhi, 1757 links to Afghan-Maratha Conflicts. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that is him. I'm in the process of blocking his socks right now. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

What are your views on this removal of content? - a highly acclaimed illustrated book with text 'India Unveiled', probably the only book ever published in the Western world to have been officially recognized by a Prime Minister of India, a book written by Robert Arnett categorized as "Hindu nationalist garbage" (without any discussion)? wow? This is by the way backed by another book "The Role of Native Culture and Language" according to which, Will Durant says, "India is the Motherland of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages." So I don't think it's entirely baseless, yet it was reverted.

In the article Caste in one of his edit summaries (check the edit) he wrote, "I'm sorry India remains "the" paradigmatic example" of caste system presumably.

He also writes in Talk:India that "Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone".

Is he not the classic definition of anti-Hindu, anti-India or what? Check his contributions and you will hopefully see that there is something disingenuous. He has experience, yes and that gives him a certain amount of leverage but that leverage is being abused, I think. He labels anybody who disagrees with him as either "Hindu nationalist", "Biased" or something like that. He is unnecessarily brusque. This fowler&fowler is behaving awkwardly, to say the least. See this discussion for more knowledge about the mode of thinking of this editor. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea that India is the "oldest living civilization of Earth" is not a widely accepted idea. The Middle East (the Fertile Crescent) is a top contender. Also I've seen that the Chinese have been regarded as the oldest continuously inhabited civilization (Western POV). If the book was officially recognized by other [eastern] governments, then I'd feel better about it. This is mainly due to stray away from POV. Secondly, Durant's statement is very controversial and again not a widely accepted idea. I don't see any negative reasons to removing the content but labeling something as Hindu nationalist could be problematic for some. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi Elockid ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment soon. Hope you don't mind. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Hope I wasn't harsh. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

F (New York City Subway service)

I would like edit this page, but it is semi-protected. What can I do?Dhnlin (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Dhnlin (talk 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In cases such as this, you can place a request at the talk page of the article. Be sure though to state what you want changed. X to Y. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Another Mrpontiac?

Is the SPI here another Mrpontiac? I seem to recall him having some interest in the Maratha Empire etc & know that you are familiar with the history. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the process of finding his socks. Will take me sometime. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ashish57

I've noticed that you have been involved in reverting socks on a number of articles that Ashish57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems extremely interested in. I'm interested in whether you think Dewan357 is involved, as the topics seem typical of Dewan, the 57 at least is repetive, and Dewan357 has been quite troublesome of late (see WP:AN#Banning proposal for Dewan357.—Kww(talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be Dewan. Technical data points him to Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Aggressive canvassing

Hi there, Well, there is an editor, Mrt3366 (talk · contribs), who, in my view, has been aggressively (and often blatantly) canvassing on talk pages for some time now. The canvassing is related to the India and Caste pages, both of which are under discretionary sanctions. Examples:

• For evidence related to the India page, see: here, here, here, here, here, and many others in his user contributions).
• He initiated a DRN case, "Talk:India." During it, he noticed a sympathetic statement (to his POV) on another forum. Well, he soon added that editor's name to the top of the DRN comments list and was next canvassing away on his page.
• In the RfC on the Talk:Caste page, he has been canvassing as well, see for example, something from just a little while ago].
• He also has his own RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates, being pursued, I think, to support his (thus far unsuccessful) attempt to insert the template in the FA India. He has been changing the statement of the RfC long (3 days) after many people have responded to it. He has also been posting on the talk pages of other such cities templates, where presumably there would be sympathetic editors, and also on country pages which have these templates. I'm sorry but it is really getting out of control.

Both India and Caste, as I've already said, come under Wikipedia discretionary sanctions. He has been warned, for example by admin Dennis Brown here as well as RegentsPark, but to no avail. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See my contributions before taking any sudden measures. Fowler, has issues. I have been warned (i.e. trying to stay within limits) and I am in touch with multiple admins (including the admin, Dennis Brown, who fowler is mentioning here, see my talk). Let it be known here and now that I have not attempted to canvass.

Canvassing doesn't mean any attempt to "notify other editors of ongoing discussions, even if it's done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Did I try to publicise my RFC? Sure, who wouldn't?
Did I try to buy votes or influence the outcome towards one side? Absolutely not. I didn't go to the user-pages this time (for which I was initially warned by Mr. Dennis). I thought the articles which have the template are more than likely to be affected by this RFC, so I publicized the RfC by posting a notice on those articles that are closely related (BTW, Talk:India also has my notice but India doesn't have that template). But how is that a bias? I had no time to search all the pages on wikipedia. Wherever I saw the V.T.E thing, I would click on the T and post the invitation. Frankly speaking, it's a lot easier - at least for me (I have a slow net conn.) - to find an article about nation that has the template, than an article that doesn't have the template. Besides I am not asking them to vote for or against the motion, there can be and has been users, eg. Qwyrxian, who do not like the template, even though the article has one. I do not think leaving messages on article talk pages and project pages is tantamount to canvassing.

Next day, someone will ask me why I did not post an invitation on Talk:XYZ or thousands of other article-talks. Well I don't own anything here, and nobody is barring anybody from assuming good faith and publicizing the RFC on the pages — they feel — I have left out.

Oh and about India, he is the one who is creating problems, I will say. I even tried to discuss with him on his talk page and explain that this not about India, but he simply assumes bad faith. He has constantly mocked me and others, on the RFC page, Talk:India, Talk:Caste, WP:DRN, etc. He arbitrarily creates "protocols" and expects us to follow them like sheep, he is constantly acting as though he owns the page India. He is deliberately abusing the leverage he gets from his experience.

Ask Steve summit or ApostleVonColorado, Ratnakar.kulkarni, CorrectKnowledge, etc they might be able to tell you what this guy's deal is. I am always amenable to discussion and reason. But I am a human too, what I resent is personal attacks and mockery. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look sometime this week. I hope you guys don't mind. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Mrt3366: A word of advice. When trying to publicize discussions, it's best to just leave requests for comment/opinions on the Wikiprojects/Noticeboard. If you need to publicize it by informing other editors, I would inform all the editors editing that article or the most active editors editing the page(s). Regarding Culture of India for example, I don't believe I've ever edited that page before. Some people may think that you asking me for an opinion could be canvassing. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Okay Sir.  Duly noted. Thank you very much for letting me know. I honestly didn't know that my post to you could be seen as an example of canvassing. I simply wanted your (since you have experience and, at that time, I think I knew not many reliable admins/editors) educated feedback on this page, let it be on record. But, I am grateful that you deemed it necessary to inform that to me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please help

Hello. Please help me on a severe vandalism, and disrespect to the article La Salette of Roxas by a certain user User talk:Phillyvillas. I cant seem to retain back what the original article is because he messed up the informations, the photos, and everything. Please have him blocked, or please make the article Protected against this. Please. jmarkfrancia (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's done. Elockid, sorry for butting in--feel free to check if you agree with me. "The gesture" in a couple of his edits is indication enough that this user does not have our best interest at heart. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for handling! Elockid ^(Talk) 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze / მაფე

Hi. I noted your indef-block of მეფე (talk · contribs) (Mepe = "king" in Georgian, BTW), and I added a {{Checked sockpuppet}} notice to this account's user page. But I noticed that there doesn't appear to be a SPI page for GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs). Should there be?

Also, I took the liberty of expanding the conditions of მეფე's block to prevent editing of his talk page or sending e-mail — matching the conditions already in place for GeorgianJorjadze. If I made a mistake here, please feel free to revert/correct what I did.

Now comes the thankless, tedious task of reviewing (and reverting) all the editing damage this person did to a whole bunch of articles before he was stopped. And given the attitude this user has demonstrated so far (the Georgian comment on მეფე's user page said "Hi! I'm the king!"), I'm afraid he's probably going to keep showing up under new guises for some time to come. — Richwales 18:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the tag should be enough. I don't have any problems with the change in block settings. Idk why he couldn't just wait. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know if I can get inside his head (or if I would want to!). Reverting all of the sock edits is maddening — some of his stuff is half-decent, but we just can't encourage this kind of misbehaviour, so, good or bad, most of it just has to go. My biggest concern at this point is that he's just going to pop up with a new identity, do it all over again, and then someone (probably not me, because I'll be all worn out from this time) will have to revert everything again, and so on. — Richwales 23:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, totally agree with you. On the bright side, he is editing from rather static IPs, and I've been able to catch him fairly quickly, so hopefully it will not get out of hand. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of author Babasaheb Purandare at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

There is a discussion at the RS Noticeboard as to whether Purandare qualifies as a WP:RS for the article Shivaji. Discussion posted here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Raja_Shivachhatrapati_by_Babasaheb_Purandare_in_the_article_Shivaji_.28Indian_history_bio.29. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

IP User

IP changing (altering) their IP in article TP, here. Is this permitted? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I don't think it's allowed. But, I don't see much of an indication that the change was malicious. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Karlie Kloss

Can it at least get semi-protection? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I got beaten to it. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Desalting proposal

I found out that editors have gained consensus at Talk:Rajput resistance to move the article to "Rajput resistance to Muslim invasions". However, the proposed title is salted, presumably by you, according to the deletion log. Can you desalt that page for a move to occur? Please respond at Talk:Rajput resistance. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 22:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this consensus may be manufactured. Hillcrest, I'm not concerned about you, but the nominator and the two other supporting voices all appear to be WP:SPAs at best. This certainly has the look of sockpuppetry, so I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hrubed. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I striked. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Case handled. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

plz add Revolution (TV series) EP3 ratins

Revolution (TV series) ep 3 final ratings --Qa003qa003 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I might be missing something. But did you add post a thread about this? I'm only asking since you need to get consensus before making changes to a fully protected page. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Infobox ethnicity representatives. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Lion

Hi - Your edit to Lion today - to revert a banned user - I believe reverted seemingly constructive edits by user Rtkat3, who is not banned. Please check. Thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Rtkat3's edit still appears to be there. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, single revert, my error, sorry. --Seduisant (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wildlife of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black panthers (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) 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Federal Security Service (Russia)

Hello, I've seen you putting a semi-protection on this article some time ago because of persistent vandalism from a certain user using random IP's... It seems like that semi-protection was too short - as soon as it expired same vandal started doing the same exact thing. I've reverted it, but I believe this article needs another, much longer semi-protection. Rndomuser (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've semi'd it for a month. Let's see how it goes. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblocks

Hi Elockid, I think don't know enough about rangeblocks yet to do them myself but it seems we could need some for a long-term IP-hopping vandal. Please have a look at WP:ANI#"Amanbir Singh" IP. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Suspected sock of Qatarihistorian

I tried to add another suspected sock of Qatarihistorian to the category of sockpuppets of that puppetmaster but I am not sure if I managed to use the sock template accordingly. Thanks for looking into that also. Best. --E4024 (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently that didn't work. Tijfo098 has explained why. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I created the tag for you. To add a tag for a suspected sock, place the following on sock's user page:

{{sockpuppet|Sockmaster name here}}

When the sockpuppet is blocked you can add the following tag:

{{sockpuppet|Sockmaster name here|blocked}}

To add a tag for a  Confirmed sockpuppet (usually by CU results), you can add this tag:

{{sockpuppet|Sockmaster name here|confirmed}}

{{checkedsockpuppet|Sockmaster name here}}

For IP socks, you can add this tag

{{IPsock|Sockmaster name here}}

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

@De728631, thanks for helping out. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Another one. Response is not really required.Just that you note it.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Robot_wagner#Unblock_request.

I have an unblock request from Robot Wagner, an editor you blocked about 6 hours ago for sockpuppetry (Non-CU, sock of User:Dalai lama ding dong). I'm not touching it - but I did not see a block notice or other discussion of the block. If there's anything you want to post for the reviewing admin, feel free - even if it's just an appeal to the WP:DUCK test. Just a heads-up. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another CU confirmed them. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Kindof expected that, the more I looked at it. But decided to play it safe. Crisis averted, it would appear. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ankh.Morpork 15:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got talk! :-)

Hi, Elockid. I left you a message here. Section 14. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I just changed the format for one table. Which particular table are you have difficulty changing? I've also corrected the International tourism receipts ranking. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nvm. Looked at the wrong year. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Old multiple-account-abuser seems to return

Hello Elockid. I hope you can help again investigating yet another account that seems to be trying to spread the same old POV that E Pluribus Anthony (AKA Corticopia) used to push: Mexico as being part of Central/Middle America instead of N. America.

This fairly new account is using the same "arguments" that Pluribus used to, edit pattern is consistend in the obsession about Oceania, Australia and now Mexico and North America. Being an "experienced" abussive user, I find it normal that he might have chose to wait until that account was "old enough" to start spreading the same obscure POV. The interesting thing is that, over the years, he's the only one disrupting and pushing his own POV against the vast evidence. Please help me keen an eye. Articles: North America and Subregion. Check please edit pattern but most importanly, POVs being pushed.

You recently discovered and blocked another of his accounts. Check that too. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 10:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that his behavior is the same. Unwillingness to concede, unwillingness to accept the vast evidence, use of anonymous IPs to avoid scrutinity (check article subregion). Whoa! Please help. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 10:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A bit odd. The IPs on subregion do not geolocate to Corticopia's location. For the account, mind listing it? Elockid ^(Talk) 00:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this persons since 2005 and I know he uses IP from Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even China. I'm not sure if he travels a lot or is just using a proxy or a VPN. Remember he's used to trick the system to get what he "wants". Long-term abuser that doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia's spirit. User is [1]. I'm not sure how this works, but I guess you are able to check all of his confirmed sockpuppets to contrast IPs? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO, Hadi doesn't look like Corticopia. I'll explain it to you in email. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dalais back

I notice you've had some experience with DLDD. He's returned, and I've opened an SPI here, if you're able to check it out. Thanks.

--Jethro B 20:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You're awesome. Thanks. --Jethro B 23:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

One question - what's BT? --Jethro B 23:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

British Telecommunications. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. --Jethro B 02:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

He is back again user:109.150.131.85.Could you block him and protect the relevant articles.Thanks.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

IN meantime, feel free to add him to the investigation I opened. --Jethro B 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Subregion

I highly suspect that a registered user is behind the anonymous IP edits at the article subregion (please check article history) to avoid scrutinity. Could you please semi-protect that article? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

After some observation, it's really quite evident that Hadi Payami and the IPs edit warring are connected. The subject area is the same, the timing of the edits and Hadi Payami's description of himself being Australian coupled with the IPs being from Australia all suggest strongly that they are connected. Just as a note there is edit warring not just on subregion but on pages like European Netherlands are him. So I've blocked Hadi for one week. Let's see how that goes first. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for your fast response and comitted attitude to keep a healthy WP community. I have bad news [2]. Please, keep in mind other patterns of the person I suspect is behind that account and anonymous IP: uncivility and the POV that he's trying to impose. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 10:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reblocked and extended Hadi Payami's block, blocked the IP for 2 weeks and semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being so pro-active. I've noticed another possible sockpuppet, I'm pretty sure about this one. I couldn't find the tool to compare two different account's contribution lists but with a quick look was somehow enough. IP, Hadi Payami and the account User:2sc945 are closely related. First, all three accounts edited the article subregion, pretty much the same edit pattern there and in other articles. Could you please take a look? User 2sc945 has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I think this is a very foolish way to tell us "hey I'm here". 2sc945 is being provocative. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok I was right. Look at this [3]. That IP edited 2sc945's page... that IP is the one you blocked because it was Hadi Payami's. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Jimilsk

Hi there. Jimilsk (talk · contribs) appears to be a sleeper that you missed, he behaves very much the same way as those you banned[4] [5] [6] as sockpuppet of Mrpontiac1. --39.41.44.88 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

All block and then some. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[7] Only one edit but he did the exact same edits with a previous sock[8] on Human rights abuses in Sindh. Could you check it please when you have a moment. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Back again

Dude is back again. Just never stops. I think I may have messed up the formatting though, it may need to be moved to another page.

Thanks. --Jethro B 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet questions

Hi Elockid, I was wondering if you could advise on a question as I'm not sure I follow the exact definition/rules of sockpuppets. I see that you blocked Special:Contributions/202.127.28.67. Someone using that IP address has been commenting on my talk page regarding some disagreements on various edits I've made, and this is one of four IP addresses they have used to comment on this discussion. They don't deny being the same person though, so I'm not sure what the rules are in this situation. Any guidance is appreciated. Thank you, Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

:You can ignore and freely revert this person. The person editing under these addresses is a banned user. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Elockid, please hear me out. You must mean "blocked," not "banned." I was never banned. And like I told Kelly Marie 0812, proxies can be used freely on Wikipedia until they are blocked. See WP:PROXY. I was not misbehaving at all. I am one of those legitimate users the WP:PROXY policy mentions. I was blocked by a different editor right after I last commented to Kelly Marie 0812 as IP 12.151.252.215, but I was blocked for vandalism that I didn't even commit. That's just the way such IP sharing goes, but I don't deserve to have my valid comments reverted simply because I'm using a proxy. I have never used them to harm Wikipedia. So taking all that in mind, will you please let my comment stand at WP:SOAPS? 218.203.54.8 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Striking out what I said. The appeared to be multiple people editing from the address at the same time. There's really nothing to worry about at the moment. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Elockid. I honestly was less concerned about the specific user and was wondering the difference between sockpuppet and what I've now learned is proxy. Is it simply vandalism vs. not? How do you tell who is vandalizing versus others using the same address? It seems frustrating that you can't tell the edit histories or have a talk page to reach a person at. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The No Spam Barnstar

		The No Spam Barnstar
		Elockid, many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better project because of hardworking Admins like you! --Hu12 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Elockid ^(Talk) 14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at Clarification and Amendment

Hi. Just FYI, you've just been mentioned here, in connection with a request made by Darkness Shines for expanded sanctions on the India-Pakistan topic. If, after reading the request and the comments, you feel any of us are misunderstanding the policies and procedures for identifying and reporting suspected socks (and when it is or isn't OK to start reverting their edits on sight), I think your input might be very helpful. Thanks. — Richwales 06:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I should also note per my talkpage procedures that I mentioned you at my talkpage on the same subject. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And a related discussion is also in progress at WT:SPI (see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive12#When to tag a suspected sock on user's talk page?). — Richwales 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

MohammedBinAbdullah

I think this may be him[9] If you recall MBA kept creating Isreal and state terrorism, this edit[10] looks like another way of going about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure yet. Suspicious but many of the articles they've been editing don't seem to be target area of MBA. It could be him trying to throw us off though. Let's wait a little. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts re the other articles. Shall keep an eye on him for a bit. Thanks Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Woodlands Community College

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for protecting the page, I was going crazy trying to keep up with all of the vandalism! Sue Rangell 02:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :D Elockid ^(Talk) 02:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese blogpost spambots

See the edit filter log for filter #501 (Special:AbuseFilter/501). Is there anything CheckUser can do about the latest entries on that list?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked a whole bunch of socks and will send and email for stewards to handle the rest. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a long-term problem on at least one other wiki. Stewards previously have told me that rangeblocking can't work for them, so unfortunately this edit filter is all we have.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As more and more surface, we can handle them better (I've been helping to get some feasible ranges identified and blocked). There's been a number of rangeblocks placed by stewards to counter the spambots. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what do the capital letters like "X" in your rangeblock summaries mean?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They're really more for me, they don't have any particular meaning. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• This one will probably be blocked by the time you see it, but check it - Rzhq9gzm73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Soap's talk page

You got the block, I got the revert and revision. Nice work. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice job to you too. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

They're continuing to pop out of the woodwork:

• Aardvark on Prozac (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Drew Pickles turned me swell (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bluer Aardvark (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Is a rangeblock possible? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Juraj Budak

Well done on Juraj Budak. I started to have that suspicion the other day, but just didn't have time to follow it up. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:24.125.95.184

Hello

As you're the blocking admin I thought I'd drop by and let you know that User talk:24.125.95.184 is appealing the block you put on their account. You blocked them but then I noticed the IP was wondering why they were blocked, it seemed simplier just to add the block template to their user talk page. I've refused the unblock but thought I would let you know in case you've anything to add.--5 albert square (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Elockid ^(Talk) 12:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Something weird at AIV

Something strange has happened at WP:AIV. Helperbot has twice removed a report on Special:Contributions/195.225.189.6, saying that you have blocked for 1 year, but the block log doesn't show such a block. Any idea why? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Three times now. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See Special:BlockList/195.225.189.6. It's rangeblocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I thought there would be a simple answer. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Thanks, Reaper.

@David Biddulph: for future reference, you can click the "Current blocks" on the bottom of the IP contribs. Unfortunately though, it won't tell us if the IP is autoblocked. If you have any further questions, feel free to leave a message. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There's always something new that I'm learning. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Vistim lists, RfC and your reversion of sockpuppetry Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings

Just a polite heads-up on my recent edit to Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings in which I added back the content (the victim list) you had removed & protected as a result of sockpuppetry. Rather than do it here, I explained my reasonings in detail over at Talk:Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings. -- Cooper ⁴²_{(Talk)(Contr)} 19:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Open proxy?

Can you check on 134.139.234.109 (talk), similar edits as past blocked proxies. nableezy - 20:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Block of 201.250.48.*

Recently you blocked the IP range 201.250.48.* due to "block evasion" until January 13 or so. The entire 201.250.*.* range is used by the Telefónica ISP. IPs in the range are distributed at random among the users when they log into the network and an individual user gets an automatic connection reset every four days or so. Meaning that such a lengthy block is pointless and only serves to annoy legitimate users of the encyclopedia who happen to be in the wrong IP range at the wrong time (myself in this case). Please lift the block or severely trim its length. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.27.131 (talk • contribs)

Please note that I did not block the entire 201.250.x.x range as you are able to edit. This is actually not a busy range. If there was significantly more collateral damage, then I would consider unblocking the range or shortening the block. Otherwise, users are instructed to register an account or request one at WP:ACC. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Socks you may be looking for.
Message added 03:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fickle finger of fate

	Irony man
	Good work at User talk:199.216.46.203. I am sure he will get the message, if not the irony. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

XD. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalizing Samoa

What's wrong with nwhat i did to Samoa, I tried to help them out.

Area of Dhaka's urban area wrong by factor 6 in Demographia's list of urban areas

Hi, I noticed an inconsistency regarding the population density of Dhaka in List_of_urban_areas_by_population which is based on Demographia's data in comparison to other Dhaka-related pages like Dhaka, Greater_Dhaka_Area, Dhaka_District, Dhaka_Division etc. which are based on government data. I came to the conclusion that Demographia used the completely wrong number for the area.

I copy this from my comment on the Talk page: The area is probably where the error comes from. It says 347km² while the wiki article on the city mentions 360km² for the city proper alone (which holds some 9m people according to most recent numbers). As the note "Narayanganj included" suggests, the numbers here refer to Dhaka District + Narayanganj District. This would also match the 15.4m population given. However the area of Dhaka District is 1,459.56 km² and that of Narayanganj District is 759.57 km² according to the respective Wiki pages, so the combined area would be 2,219.13km² and not 347km².

That's more than six times as much. I know that it's a single source, but that source is so blatantly wrong, it should in my opinion at least be added as a note in the table, if not corrected. Pandhii (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the discrepancy is the definition. Some definitions encompass large areas of countryside while some definitions such as Demographia only include the urban areas thus giving a much smaller area. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it's more than that. They chose a different region to define the "area" and the "population". That's the discrepancy I'm referring to. They either have to go with Dhaka city (~360 km² and 9m people) or Dhaka(+Narayanganj) district (~2,219km² and 15m people), not the city's area and the district's population. That way, their calculation of the density is wrong, not compared to other entries in the list, but absolutely. No administrative unit of Dhaka has a population density of 44,400/km², it's as simple as that. Pandhii (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I contacted Demographia and the author replied that the population estimate of 15.4m people is based on the 2011 figure reported to the United Nations by the government of Bangladesh. However when 2011 census data was released, they noticed that the government's geographical urban area definition was different than theirs (which is only the continuously developed parts of Dhaka and Narayanganj Zilas as well as the southern part of Gazipur Zila). They are going to correct it for the 2013 issue. He also said that for their definition of the urban area the correct population would have been 13.6m according to 2011 census data (~14m projected for 2012). Pandhii (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Also, the thing is about official definitions is that they tend to differ from one country to the next. To compensate for this, some organizations such as Demographia have their own definition which doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to encompass the same regions as the official definitions. It's more for a fair comparison. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr.Cox made a posting on the official Demographia blog with details on the erroneous population estimate and the correct 2012 number of 14.0m. I corrected the figure on the Wiki page citing the official blog. Hope this is ok with you and I did the citation in the correct way. Pandhii (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Socks

I have forgotten which sock this was[11] I am guessing this is a new one[12] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it ABDEVILLIERS0007? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's Mrpontiac1 and the blocked IPs are him editing through open proxies. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elockid. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proxy block

Could you comment here? (Even if it's just to say "keep it blocked"). You can email me any private data if you'd prefer. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey J-Ponyo, so I looked into the CU data behind it. It appears (by CU data) that this used to be a proxy, but it's last time showing as a proxy was Sept. 21st, and is not being used as a proxy now, so I would say it's clear to unblock, but I'll let Elockid have a chance to comment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked for now. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and vandalising pages

Hi. Can you please check to see if Phoenix2535 (talk · contribs) is Lysozym (talk · contribs)? I came across Phoenix2535 and noticed that he's vandalising pages (i.e. the source Britannica clearly states "Aḥmad Shah Durrānī extended Afghan control [from Meshed]... [13]" but Phoenix2535 replaced the Iranian city of "Mashed" with the Afghan city of "Herat"). He also adds Category:LGBT royalty to pages of famous Turkic kings [14] and uses this unreliable source [15] He also makes anti-Afghanistan edits [16], replacing the correct Afghan history template in articles with the incorrect History of Iran template to NON-Iranian empires and kings who not only were born and died inside modern-day Afghanistan but also their capitals were inside Afghanistan.... naturally they are a part of the history of Afghanistan but this ethnnocentric POV-pusher believes they (i.e. Ghaznavids) belong to Iran. I believe that Phoenix2535 is Lysozym (also known as Tajik (talk · contribs)) who does too much POV-pushing [17] [18] and constantly makes controversial edits. I know him at the German Wikipedia, he also used a very similar sock (Phoenix2) which got blocked indefinately there [19] [20]. Under Phoenix2535 he changed his writing a little bit to avoid detection.--182.177.93.132 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Experienced new user?

Can you see anything in these conributions that rings a bell with our prolific Maratha socker? I'd guess that the use of HTML rather than wiki markup [in this edit might be an idiosyncracy. Who ever they are, they've found HotCat very quickly! - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hotcat has been default enable for all users, so expect people to find it fast. Automatic one click category removal for all, although whether they know how to use it is a different matter. CMD (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I had to turn it on ... but perhaps I had to do that because I accidentally misclicked and turned it off at some earlier stage. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sock of Mrpontiac1, now blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

HerutJuram

Hello Elockid,

I may not remember properly but I think that you blocked a sockpuppet of HertJuram who reguarly comes back. He is back here : User:SquidooSepul. Could you advice what to do or take the case ? That is tiring to see him back regularly. I thank you in advance. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock. Account blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

SPA - Sock Puppet Account or Single Purpose Account?

I am here to you because I think this case can only be solved by the intervention of a check user like you. Before others point to my incompetence (I was told that I have a long list of adversarial stalkers), I don't know under what circumstances you're allowed to use that privilege. But this I think is open and shut case. I am here to push forth my doubts about Killbillsbrowser (talk · contribs).

First notice that this user has only contributed to a very controversial page Kashmir Conflict in this whole year, a page that has been protected because of persistent sock-puppetry and IP-attacks and is also under ArbComm sanctions. Now, see this user's edit count: only 74 article edits in 6+ years. Note that this user has a habit of vanishing for a long period of time and then suddenly makes multiple edits to specific pages who he has never edited before. Strange? Other editors have expressed doubt too. See his talk. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, I think Killbillsbrowser is an SPA. If he/she is sock (have some doubts atm), then I don't know anyone that comes to mind. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I could venture guesses but they might be seen as baseless personal attacks and that might serve as a reason to rap me on the knuckles. Hence, allow me to remain silent at this moment. But please monitor this user and, if you can, monitor me (please) and warn me whenever you feel I am contravening a policy/guideline. Lastly, I sincerely thank you for your time. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty, will do. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

SPI page for GeorgianJorjadze?

Hi. I noticed you tagged シ シ シ (talk · contribs) as a sock of GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs). GeorgianJorjadze has a couple of other socks — but, for some reason, I'm having trouble locating the SPI archive for his account. Can you help me find it? Thanks. — Richwales 06:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Or is this just an example of "obviously a sock, so no SPI needed" — as with მეფე (talk · contribs) a couple of months ago? — Richwales 06:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

After some memory-jogging, I realize this is basically a rehash of earlier stuff. So maybe we should just forget I posted the question this time. Sorry to disturb you over this. — Richwales 07:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

ACC

Hi Elockid, when you have the time DQ would like your opinion on an account request (one of your blocks). I like the Christmas cheer by the way :). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done and thanks. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 14:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Userpage Barnstar

	The Userpage Barnstar
	What a great Christmas-themed userpage! WOW! Happy Holidays! :) Mediran talk to me! 03:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Elockid ^(Talk) 16:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

block evasion

User:106.211.71.71.vrghs jacob is evading the block.please block this ip and request you to lock this page Ministry of defene india.please investigate(Harishrawat11 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC))

The IP is stale but the article is on my watchlist. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit by ChelseaFCG at Talk:Georgian alphabet

Hi. I was talking with Njardarlogar (talk · contribs) (see his talk page) about a comment made by ChelseaFCG at Talk:Georgian alphabet. Given that ChelseaFCG has turned out to be a sock, Njardarlogar asked whether perhaps the entire conversation which he started on the talk page should be deleted — not just his last comment (which you deleted, and which Njardarlogar reinstated, apparently without fully understanding what was going on). Since someone else (Dougweller) contributed to the thread, I'm not sure if would really be proper to delete the entire thread. What would you recommend? — Richwales 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Usually on these instances, I'll collapse the thread with a reason on the collapse top part (I hope you know what I'm talking about). Elockid ^(Talk) 00:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgian Armed Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page P-9 (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) 10:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

(talk page stalker) I hope this helps. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze

Hi. GeorgianJorjadze (using a sock) posted something on my talk page which was apparently intended for you. The sock had already been blocked by the time I saw the posting. Just FYI. — Richwales 17:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like the IP they've been editing is also block. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(I'm going to send him an email. Hopefully he/she will understand what we've been saying to him). Elockid ^(Talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For blocking the IP at Expeditions to Bengal and other pages. Any clues as to how to spot him? I was wondering where the text came from. Could you reply on my page as I'm about to logoff for a while. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The big giveaway was the IP making similar edits on the same articles of interests as socks. This edit was very similar to this edit. Also, reinstating this edit from a sockpuppet was even more suspicious. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I blocked 119.73.66.22 (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock, reverted and semi-protected the articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's been busy on 119.73.64.0/21. I've rangeblocked it for a week. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Football records in spain

So, it is clear that you are a clear fan of barcelona as when there was no consensus to put 100% BARCA favoring records in WP:footy, no agreement, you still favored to put that record in the article. There is nothing more to say as Football records in spain is a Barcelona record article now officialy with Elockid as the puppet admin for barcelona!49.244.118.139 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. What I am favoring is enforcing our blocking/banning policies which means that you are not allowed to edit until your sanctions have been lifted. As such, if you are the sole member of the disputing party (which you are), your input may be disregarded and not put into consideration as once again, you are not allowed to edit until you get your sanctions lifted. Since you are the sole disputer and are not allowed to edit, the other editors need not to achieve consensus with you. Let me say this again, you are not allowed to edit until your sanctions are lifted. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good try but NO! you are clearly trying to evade what I am trying to question about your toothless and flawed administration style and you are trying to go off topic. I am CLEARLY not only the sole member of the disputing party as there is a long long history of disputes in that article when pro Barca users and their puppets like you have been trying to put hillarious and uncited records like the ones user:adnan is forcing right now. I could clearly write a long report of the false data that has been put there with valid proofs but dont wish to waste my time as you, the puppet admin of barcelona fan users will not do anything. And please :), me editing or not editing is not even the question here. As an admin, you should have clearly blocked the other user instead of me, because he/she is putting the wrong records and he/she is the clear sockpuppet before me. If you are that blind and dumb, I have nothing more to say. There are enough dumb admins like you, a few ones for example say Buddha was born in India.

Also, just so you know what your level as admin is, the User: Adnan is a sock of about 7 users ( i know all of them) who have been messing that page for about 2 and half years now to be precise. So you should be clear that you are a joke of an admin, who is being fooled by users like that.

Yes, because I'm so dumb that I believed that you were a new user. You are OBVIOUSLY a sock yourself, no matter how much you try and deny it. Unless someone hacked the system and personally changed your private data, which extremely highly unlikey, then you are a  Confirmed, sockpuppet according to the system. Why we should we believe anyone who one blatantly lied to us and two denied that they were lying? In your discussion thread, you ARE the only one disputing, there are no other people disputing on your side. Furthermore, you will find your efforts useless. Also, I can and will protect any pages you edit and if the disruption is high enough, your entire editing range. Do you want to try me because I have done this before to other users? If you also think Adnan is a sock, then file an SPI with compelling evidence. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Elockid - can you explain who is blocked/banned here, who is socking etc.? Is thre an SPI? GiantSnowman 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The person who's socking is DBSSHASPER (talk · contribs) (see the edit history of the page, this is one of his favorite pages). The latest sock was Masterpasa (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 15:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - what about IPs? We should start to populate Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DBSSURFER in case this becomes a case of long-term abuse. I'll also add that article to my watchlist too monitor for future re-appearances. GiantSnowman 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably worth figuring out whether the various Nepalese IPs it's currently using are open proxies as well, so as to reduce the attack vector (from both this editor and potential others). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I suppose we could start tagging them

@Chris/Thumperward: They don't seem like open proxies to me. Though some IPs do use an XFF service if I remember correctly. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome.

{{You've got mail}}.

Goodbye. Nyttend (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've performed the action that I suggested, and since I wonder if this might not exactly fall under any of the normal criteria, I included an "ask me off-wiki if you need to know more" comment. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[21]Pretty sure this is a new account of his, can you check it please. I asked Sal but as your around I figure to ask you also. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's him. I've blocked the account. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Another checkuser needed

Don't know if you saw this, but another sock popped up at ANI to complain that you'd blocked Justice Creator improperly. Both accounts were created in the last few hours. Is it possible to issue a rangeblock that prevents account creation for a little while? Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like somebody else handled the block. Hopefully that will prevent them from causing more disruption. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Friends of soosim

Hello Elockid. Soosim has complained to me about this account. I happened to notice your block of an account which was active on Amiram Goldblum, after I reviewed WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Runtshit/Archive. That SPI is the only one which has a link to the Goldblum article. The account name seems to be mocking Soosim, who created the Amiram Goldblum article, which has caused some controversy. It appears that the subject of the article would prefer that it be deleted, though he does not look to be the one socking. The account User:Friends of soosim could most likely just be blocked outright for having a disruptive username, but I wonder if I ought to reopen the Runtshit SPI for this. Thanks for any advice, EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to think that Friends of soosim is 24.4.87.85 (talk · contribs). See this edit by 24.4.87.85 and Friends of soosim. I'm not going to say that there's absolutely no possibility that Friends of soosim is related to Runtshit (no checks done). Elockid ^(Talk) 15:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that these are all Runtshit socks. The accounts are adding defamatory information from Frointpage.com to an article about an Israeli anti-occupation activist, which is characteristic of Runtshit. And the puppeteer has a history of creating new sub-sets of accounts for different enemies; there have been separate accounts to attack Neve Gordon, Justin Raimondo, Barry Chamish, Norman Finkelstein and others. The puppeteer has also on occasion named socks "in tribute" to other editors with whom I have clashed; see Fipplethitsback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fipps revenge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other similarly-named socks. I think a checkuser here might prove very revealing. RolandR (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And note that a week ago i tagged the 24 IP which you suspect as a suspected Runtshit sock. RolandR (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right Roland. That is a Runtshit sock along with Sixth international (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock

How did you determine[22], this is a question and not a challange? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this are very typical of socks. First, the formatting of <!-- and --> are indications the user has experience here. Secondly, here is more knowledge of Wikipedia formatting indicating that they are not new. Thirdly, ANI is generally not a place where new users go. The new accounts claiming "censorhip" or "abuse" are almost likely socks. Using new accounts to comment on threads about themselves are also another indication. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Bulls eye. Thanks. Who is the sock master? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on today's edits and the other socks editing the page, I would say that the account is a sock of Camponhoyle (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 19:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

After having been dormant for three years? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's based on the account Chindit96 (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 19:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It is a hard job, the one you're on. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:75.149.21.41

FYI: This IP vandalism-only account, User:75.149.21.41, is at it again. Happy holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not too active right now but it is a Comcast address. If there's more recent vandalism, I'll give it an extended block. Have a happy holiday to you too! Elockid ^(Talk) 23:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:TheManwhoeditsurpage

You might want to just block him so far it looks like the account was meant for just vandalism. Kingjeff (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I did. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi Elockid (love the festive talkpage, btw). I wondered if you might take a look at User:Sonic2030, blocked for continuing an edit war whilst logged out (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonic2030). The user is swearing blind in repeated unblock requests that they are not the IP in question - frankly, the history of The Salvation Army sounds like a whole flock of ducks to me and every other reviewing admin, but since the user is so vociferous in their protestations of innocence, I was hoping you might be persuaded to add a checkuser assessment to the SPI, thus confirming one way or the other whether the IP is, in fact, Sonic2030. Much obliged if you would, but either way, happy holidays to you and yours. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've taken a look at the history (both as a CU and with whois) and this honestly looks like you are dealing with many different people. There is no indication of socking on that page, though Sonic2030 may be related to a previous user I blocked, the connection is definitely  Inconclusive and there are not enough edits to match behavoir. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DQ for taking a look for me. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

Do you archive your talk page manually? If not then please let me know. Also tell me if there a page with the instructions to archive a talk page.--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 03:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do archive my talk page manually. You can find instructions on how to archive a talk page at Help:Archiving a talk page. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please check these page

I suspect this page and this page has wrong informations. Like this user has no rights as rollback right but in there it is said this user has these rights. Again this user is not a member of any wikiproject. But there it is said that this user is a member of Wikiproject India and Wikiproject Pakistan. Can you please check others?--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason for this is that they probably copied another user's userpage and didn't remove the info that doesn't pertain to them. I don't believe there's any rules against this. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Belated thanks. Hope you had a good one. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Elockid! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks. Hope you had a good one. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks. Hope you had a good one. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access

Hi Elockid. Please could you remover the talk page access for 58.215.88.12? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's another open proxy that's just been used by Echigo mole: 221.10.40.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Now back as sock Axiswrong (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) reinstating the personal attacks on Carolmooredc. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Several proxies blocked. This is actually Grawp having a tantrum. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus

Hi Elockid, i see that you are blocking the ip's which are open proxies, i.e.Special:Contributions/177.36.243.77 Could you please also check 14.0.208.42 (talk · contribs), 14.0.208.51 (talk · contribs), 14.0.208.97 (talk · contribs), 14.0.208.113 (talk · contribs). Are these also an open proxies? Thanks 23x2 _φ 17:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They don't seem like OPs to me. I have some of the pages their editing on my watchlist and will block whichever proxies surface. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you 23x2 _φ 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim

Hello Elockid, and happy holidays. Could you take care of 200.114.132.240 (talk), another in the never-ending list of IP socks used by AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs)? Thanks, nableezy - 21:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (and this background makes my sig look all kinds of festive) nableezy - 22:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yw. Perhaps I might keep this theme all year round. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bicholim conflict for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicholim conflict is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicholim conflict until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)