User talk:Elockid/Archive 16

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	The few random ducks I've encountered always ended up getting hunted by you. I also see that you have been very much active in combating long-term vandalism, sockpuppetry etc. I salute you! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Elockid ^(Talk) 12:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my curiosity. Among some of those ducks you've blocked, I tried searching but couldn't find any relevant WP:SPIs or messages on your talk page. How then do you usually find them on your own? Here's one sort-of recent example. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I know it's your Checkuser rights. So that probably means it's something like, every new user account's IP which matches that of an already existing account has to be investigated--so you must be having some automatic way to detect this or something. Did I just answer my own question? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A thread on ANI (I keep an eye on ANI/AN reports of socking) caught my attention. Prior to the report at ANI, while I was checking for Open Proxies, I noticed a number of disruptive edits coming from them. When I saw the ANI report, I saw that there was a connection between the edits coming from the open proxies and the disruption targeting India Against Corruption.

CheckUser is a bit more complicated. IPs tend to be dynamic so a new account does not necessarily have the same exact IP as a previous account. However, even though IPs are dynamic, customers are usually allocated certain range(s). This can be used to determine a connection between accounts editing from different IPs. Some other technical knowledge is required to make further connections. CheckUser is very helpful but I mainly use CheckUser to stop disruption. I have access to several tools such as edit filters that helps me to identify things such as open proxies, socks, or any other kind of disruption. These are the primary ways for me to detect ongoing or potentially occurring disruption. Other people have access to these tools also and here's an example of one of the tools at use:

21:44, November 15, 2011 Snowolf (talk | contribs | block) protected User talk:Elockid‎ [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) (incoming attacks) (hist | change)

My talk page was protected before any attacks occurred. If you're wondering, that page protection is Sockpuppetry related. Subject areas such as the Arab-Israeli Conflict or the Indo-Pakistani Conflict are examples of areas where socks are attracted to. So I keep an eye out an those areas. There are also some kind users who message me privately when there's disruption. Along with the tools I mentioned, the pages I monitor, and the intel from other users, I usually find quite a bit of disruption. Did I answer everything? Elockid ^(Talk) 18:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes...forgot about that ANI post. Thanks indeed for your explanation. I understand quite a bit now, it's really more complicated than I thought. After seeing this, I find it hard to imagine that such activity will actually go undetected or that someone can get away with it. It must be a total different experience doing this as compared to regular editing. Amazing. Thanks once again and good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If you need something explained further, feel free to let me know. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

move6

Hi Elockid,

Can you please move this one?

• Ahmetelis Teatri (Tbilisi Metro) to Akhmetelis Teatri (Tbilisi Metro)

Jaqeli (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitechristian2013/Archive

I should know the answer to this, but I'm not sure. Here is an obvious sock - virtually identical name and edits as the last couple of socks. What's the best way for me to proceed? SPI seems jammed so I want to see if I can do something simpler. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your actions. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the block of 2001:1AF8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

Hi Elockid, thanks for your fast reply and here's some more information regarding 2001:1af8::/32. The block is indeed delegated to Leaseweb, a hosting provider. However, if you look more closely, you can see that they have assigned subnets to various customers for the SixXS IPv6 project. This project helps people to migrate to ipv6 by providing a means to "tunnel" ipv6 traffic if their own provider doesn't hand out IPv6 yet.

Here is how you could proceed. Suppose that someone detected wiki-vandalism by IP address 2001:1af8:ff03:f00:baa:020:421:4059/64. A whois query will then point to the 2001:1af8::/32AS16265 subnet (the whole block, which is assigned to Leaseweb), but you can also see a smaller block that is more appropriate here: 2001:1af8:ff03::/48. The /48 subnet is the one you want, It shows an end-user ("SixXS assignment to end-user VSZ5-SIXXS"), an abuse-contact at Leaseweb ("Abuse contact for '2001:1af8:ff03::/48' is '[email protected]'"), and also a couple of remarks regarding SixXS: the block is automatically generated and "Abuse reports should go to [email protected]". This is the block you're after. This is where an end user could try to "hide". Please note, that SixXS hands out /48 subnets to it's subscribers almost for free, and their subnets aren't necessarily tied to Leasweb (for example, 2001:7b8:1529::/48 is another subnet that has been assigned to VSZ5-SIXXS, but it is part of 2001:7b8::/32, which is handed out to BIT bv, a different internet provider). Please note that 2001:1af8:ff03::/48 is only an example, VSZ5-SIXXS is me and I'd rather not be blocked ;-)

So regarding your proxies in 2001:1af8::/32, please look again and see if there is a smaller block delegated to some end user - this is the block you're after. If there is not a smaller assignment, you could also try to send an e-mail to [email protected], asking if this particular 2001:1af8:something::/48 was assigned to someone some time ago, but has been revoked due to illegal activities. Finally: if you want any help with these SixXS/IPv6 subnets, please send me an e-mail, I'll be glad to help you. Valentijn (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the proxies did not have a /48 allocated to anyone. I can't remember which proxies exactly, but say we have the IP 2001:1AF8:AA00:120:FF:AA:0:0. According to Whois, there isn't a /48 block allocated to someone. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Your analysis regarding 2001:1af8:aa00/48 is correct. However, if 2001:1AF8:AA00:120:FF:AA:0:0 really is the IP we're talking about, then there *is* a serious problem at SixXS, because then someone is able to use their unallocated address space and I think an abuse message would be appropriate. Could you try to find out the IP address the proxy was running at? Valentijn (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to find it though it may take some time. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually found one of them: 2001:1AF8:4700:A05A:1:0:0:256. Upon further observation based on this global block, it appears that perhaps there may be more. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New Sockmasters return

Hello. Can you please help out with the following 2 sock cases?

• User:Velascobrent189
• User:Douglas bond of doom

The one of the accounts for the first sockmaster is around 6 weeks old only, but their names and editing behavior are identical to that of that guy's previous socks, so they should be indeffed to prevent further abuse of those accounts. Also, the 2 suspected socks in the 2nd case are obviously related and need to be checked and blocked. If the Jim juan sock accounts belong to someone else, then the new case that I opened should be split into a new page.

Thanks for your help. :) LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Meh. These are already handled at this point. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple SPI Pages for the same Sockmaster

Sorry to bother you, but an SPI case in the archives of User:Brightify, a Checkuser has confirmed that the following 3 accounts are all linked to him:

• User:FanforClarl
• User:HoshiNoKaabii2000
• User:WangsDaringsFun (a sock of this user was a confirmed match to Fanforcarl, who in turn is a sock of Brightify)

As a result, can you please merge their SPI archived cases, as well as their other SPI pages and Sock Categories into the corresponding ones for Brightify? Some of the cases have already been merged, making the other archives nearly redundant, and it would be easier and more convenient if all of the sock data was organized under one account. Additionally, there have been multiple requests to merge the SPI pages within the archives, so can you please carry it out? I know that you're a busy user, but this would really help us SPI investigators a lot. Here are the archive links:

• User:HoshiNoKaabii's Archive, (currently has 2 archived cases in a redirect page)
• User:WangsDaringsFun's Archive, (The page is already merged, but many of the cases from this revision haven't been merged.)
• The SPI Archive and main casepage for FanforClarl is pretty much taken care of, but the Suspected Sock category still need to be merged (as do the tags of the listed socks).

• Merge target: User:Brightify's SPI Archive

Also, if you have time afterwards, can you please alter the tags for the socks listed under the 3 users to reflect their connection to Brightify? Thanks. I really appreciate all of your hard work. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

For future reference. These are usually handled by an SPI clerk. Might wanna ping them if you haven't already. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. @Rschen7754: @Callanecc: Hello. Can you please take care of this mess for us? Thanks.

Never mind my request. It turns out that Brightify, HoshiNoKaabii2000, and WangsDaringsFun are 3 separate sockmasters, despite being stated to be Co firmed matches by another Checkuser (probably a behavioral match, though). It turns out that each account was editing from 3 geographically separate IPs. As a result, I undid the changes I made to the SPI archives of HoshiNoKaabii2000 and WangsDaringsFun. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Developed country

It seems like somebody insists on an old version, as if it's a "stable" one (as they claim on the edit summery), although it's as old as of 30 April, and was - since then - followed by some newer versions (of various editors), which have now been overwritten! I don't want to open an editwar, but I don't think one can justify overwriting so many versions, just in order to preserve old data of 2005... 77.125.140.82 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As I've guessed, an edit war is going to begin! That's why I didn't want to revert anything. 77.125.140.82 (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it in case this reoccurs. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane95's back

IPhonehurricane95 has returned, so we may need more blocks on his IPv6 Addresses in addition to his regular IPs, in order to suppress his malicious behavior. Of course, he's continuing to harass other users (including me and User:Earth100) as well as junking up pages whenever he gets the chance. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

These are his most recently used IPv6 Addresses: 2621:0:1234:15:799F:AD25:FBQA:1B05 and 2621:0:1234:15:799F:AD25:FBQA:1B04. Hopefully this will help for a rangeblock (if possible). He has also returned under more IPv4 addresses under 66.87.64.0/18, including 66.87.74.21 and 66.87.114.73. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Those actually aren't IPv6 address. IPv6 addresses only go up to F as a letter character. See there's a Q on the account 2621:0:1234:15:799F:AD25:FBQA:1B05. The 66.87 range is a mobile and blocking the whole /18 range would cause a lot of collateral damage. It looks like though DoRD has handled everything for now. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know that. Then just what kind of IP is that? LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just a regular account. He probably wanted to make it seem like it's an IP. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is??? ... I didn't think that anyone would do this. I haven't seen anything like this since he created another IP-like account in February 2012 under the name of Typhoonwikihelper (and it was the only time until now), so I didn't see this coming. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

He's back again, and this time he managed to create 2 accounts on Wikipedia: User:OopsIP25 and User:Decline nonsense request. Can you please block the underlying IP range for a month, or reblock it if an existing block has already expired? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

LightandDark2000, did you notice that another CU blocked those accounts? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was very well aware of that. However, my biggest concern is that once the autoblock on the underlying IPs wear off, he will be able to continue socking, or just switch to another unblocked IP on that range. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of webhost block

Hi Elockid - when you have a moment could you pop into UTRS and see if you have anything to add to unblock request #10958 regarding a webhost block you have in place? It's sitting in the CU queue. Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just commented there. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Question on disclosures

Hi there, quick question on disclosures. Would it be a good idea to list websites I own on my page? Spacegeek31 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not actual block?

Recently, you placed a block notice on an editors talk page, without actually blocking them. Just wanted to let you know I stumbled onto that. --Lixxx235 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I rangeblocked them (20:55, May 24, 2014 Elockid (talk | contribs | block) blocked 2601:5:1300:351::/64 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism) (unblock | change block)). For this ISP, the range is equivalent to blocking a single IPv4 address. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahh. --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got a fan

I assume you're aware, but I just blocked three accounts for attempted impersonation (Elockphucker, Elockidder, User:Elockiddy). It seems to be linked to your block at User talk:2601:5:1300:351:5C0E:AC6E:B19A:A50B. I also deleted User:Elockid/CV. You should be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elockidder to find out if there were other accounts made, and/or may want to setup a filter if this is a recurring issue. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the memo and the handling the situation. It should be good for now. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cu request

There's a request on ACC, that could use your input as a CU. Since that queue has been slow lately, there's only one request to look at. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:FactStraight again!

Hello Elockid,

This user is back to his disruptive and vandalising editing. He was blocked for it but he continues to do the same as he seems he learned no lesson from it. Now he is vandalising the articles of the members of the Georgian noble family of House of Mukhrani which is noble and non-dynastic branch of the Bagrationi dynasty. He is removing the important details out of the articles and vandalises them as he did in the past. He was warned in the past many times but he still continues so. Please do everything possible to avoid Wikipedia by his disruptive editing on the articles of the Georgian nobility or royalty. Jaqeli (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked repeatedly and ate length for edit-warring, you know Jaqeli's m.o: to accuse others of imposing a POV, while he's imposing one. On the issue of his attempting to minimise WP references to the House of Mukhrani as dynastic princes, here's what he was told by his self-adopted mentor. Jaqeli and I disagree about the dynasticity of the Mukhrani in Georgia, which is why instead of substituting "dynast" for "nobleman" as I think it should be, I've compromised, restoring NPOV by simply omitting "nobleman" and leaving "Georgian" -- a term on which we both agree. The fact that "Mukhranbatoni" is standardly translated in English as "Prince of Mukhrani" offends his efforts to demote that family as part of his efforts to have Wikipedia reflect his open advocacy for another dynasty. FactStraight (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're gonna get involved Elockid, please read my reply to Jaqeli on my talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FactStraight. Base on his past edits, it seems Jaqeli is trying to promote one branch over another while FactStraight is trying to maintain a neutrality. Jaqeli has a habit of imposing his interpretations of Georgian history and making sure his way is the only way as I had the misfortune of encountering on Talk:List of Georgian monarchs #Splitting into many lists. I've been really bothered by these edits but haven't done much to stop it since I'm not that active anymore. Glad to know FactStraight is out there keeping the facts straight. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User FactStriagt has just removed the sourced information here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Please take some action for stoping his behaviour. Jaqeli (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@The Emperor's New Spy: And you better know what the exact problem is here before agreeing with the user blindly. Jaqeli (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

None of your sources translate the title as Lord of Mukhrani, right? And can you quote the exact line in one of your sources for me please? I'm trying to check them out but google book preview can only show me so much. The Making of the Georgian Nation By Ronald Grigor Suny only mentions Mukhrani on page 65, and I can't read pages 46-47 because the preview skip over those pages. And I can't find the other sources online and assume they are in Russian or Georgian, can you translate the lines regarding the Mukhrani for us. I assume you have them on hand if you were using them, --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@The Emperor's New Spy: The problem here is not "lord of Mukhrani" or "prince of Mukhrani" at all. Mukhranian princes or nobles were the same as princes Akaki Tsereteli or Ilia Chavchavadze. They were not the royal princes but just a nobility like those 2 Georgian poets were. The problem is that the user FactStraight is removing the word nobleman (tavadi) from the text. Mukhranians were always a tavadi (noble) family and he clearly wants to ignore them and is waging edit war. Grigor Suny says that the Mukhranians created a satavado because they were tavadi nobles. Other sources say the same. For example "სათავადო სახლის უფროსს ეწოდებოდა მუხრანბატონები" Mukhranbatons were the heads of the satavados (place of tavadis) or "XVI—XVII საუკუნეებში მუხრანბატონები ქართლის 5 დიდებულ თავადთა რიცხვში შედიოდნენ" In XVI-XVII the Mukhranbatons were listed in the highest 5 tavadi families in Kartli. Jaqeli (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And if Jaqeli translates "Mukhranbatoni" from Georgian text to "Lord of Mukhrani" what will that prove? Nobody disputes that "batoni" by itself is usually translated "lord". But when the title of this particular branch of the Bagrationi dynasty is titled in English, "Mukhranbatoni" is translated as "Prince of Mukhrani" -- as I've shown that Jaqeli was told by Kober. And I don't object to the use of nobleman in the article as a description of the Mukhraneli -- provided that "dynast" is also used, since that status is acknowledged in such other well-known texts as Badts-Coutant's Le Petit Gotha and Eilers' "Queen Victoria's Descendants". Let's use both terms -- or neither, but "noble" by itself is POV as used here. "Tavadi" does not mean "noble", it is one of several Georgian titles that is translated as "prince" in English. The "war" over the dynasticity of different branches of the Bagrationi shouldn't spill over to every page where a Bagrationi is mentioned, so let's keep these pages neutral. FactStraight (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't object the word "nobleman" why do you edit war then? And tavadi is a nobility. For example Constantine I of Mukhrani and Ilia Chavchavadze both were tavadi nobles. Jaqeli (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept your insistence that a "tavadi" could only be a nobleman in Georgia, any more than I accept that Philippe II, Duke of Orléans was only a French duke without also being a French prince du sang. So, if you'll accept inclusion of "dynast" I'll accept inclusion of "nobleman", okay? FactStraight (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

...Georgian tavadi... without use of noblemen, dynast or anything else. Jaqeli (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please ask User:Jaqeli to stop with Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of Kartli. Check history. He cannot deem who is or who is not dynastic or who is or who is not royal. He is shoving his POV done our throats!!! He does this for the entire house even those who were Kings! --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't keep up with the agreement, don't you? All agreed they were tavadi nobles but you're continuing an edit war? I've said above and suggested you to get aware with the Georgian feudal system first and then blaming me for something. You're clearly advocating the nobility into a royalty and you cannot do it into an encyclopedia and you cannot remove those fact that are established for centuries. Jaqeli (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

They are members of the Bagrationi dynasty thus are dynastic. It was discussed on Talk:Constantine I, Prince of Mukhrani by User:Kober: "In summary, I concur with FactStraight in that their title should be translated as “Prince” and that they were a princely dynasty. At the same time, I fully support Jaqeli in that the Mukhranians’ status in Kartli was tavadi, that is, nobility equal to the Western European “dynastic princes”, “princes of the first rank”, or whatever they would call it in English." You clearly are ignoring what other editors have stated and imposing your own POV interpretation of tavadi and beyond that as I stated already the Mukhrani as males descended from the dynasty are dynastic members of the dynasty (anybody can see your POV in your past edits insisting that the title be translated into Lord rather the more accepted Prince of Mukhrani) and you have been imposing your own POV interpretation of who is dynastic and who is not in the Bagrationi dynasty (anybody can see this in your past edits on the articles of the current pretenders which have been reverted, where you have been clearly shown as advancing/advocating for one candidate as the legitimate successor and diminishing the role of another claimant).--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't jump from page to page and address your grievances on their related talk pages. This is not a place for such discussions I've noted that many times already. Jaqeli (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Two simple CU situations

1. Look at Hvhhvgghvhgvhvh's sole edit. Is this worth a CU run, to look for additional accounts?
2. Rather than filing a RFCU, I decided to look through Category:Wikipedia checkusers and ask someone at a talk page. I was surprised that User talk:I play my MP4s all day was a checkuser (never heard of this user before) and checked the talk page, whereupon I found that you'd blocked this user, who then abused his talk page in several ways. I reblocked with talk page access removed, but I didn't feel comfortable including the checkuserblock template (after all, I'm not a CU). If you think it appropriate, please reblock with both "removing talk page access" and "checkuserblock".

Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

(tps) @Nyttend: I noticed this account in an edit filter log, ran a check, and turned up the account you linked above. As for the second question, in my opinion, it is okay to reblock and include the CU block template. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)