User talk:Elockid: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:57, 7 February 2013

E L O C K I D

 
Home

Talk Page

Contributions

My Stats

Archives

Subpages

Email

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

Click here to leave me a message.

Beloki

I could do with an indepedent admin looking into the behaviour of Beloki (talk · contribs), which has become extreme very quickly. It might be a coincidence but the TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) came to mind very quickly once the abuse started, which is why I'm asking you as you recently blocked him. If it is him, I would support an indef. block because he has had more than enough chances now. Many thanks in advance. CT Cooper · talk 20:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little doubtful right now. Some of the pages like the African pages don't seem to be within their article interest. I'll monitor and see if anything develops. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some else has had similar suspicions but has reached a different conclusion, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Findblogging. CT Cooper · talk 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about E4024's evidence. Beloki and Kotsia2 don't look like the same user based on behavioral evidence. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Elockid

Pratyya ^{(Happy New Year)} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2024. 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 Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2024 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Thanks. Happy New Year to you too! Elockid ^(Talk) 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a question

I do a lot of anti-vandalism work here, but tonight I ran across a pattern that I haven't seen in a long time - multiple rapid edits of a user talk page (User talk:NawlinWiki) by a host of IP's (which you suspended, hence the thanks). My question is how is this happening, and is there a better way to handle it than using Huggle to do one revert after another? I did end up reporting and asking for temporary semi-protection, but this was an odd incident. Is this one person who is somehow jumping IP's or a bunch of people somehow coordinating? Mostly, I am curious. Thanks for any information! Seaphoto^Talk 07:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably one person (or occasionally one person tricking lots of people). There really is not a good way to stop that except RBI (+protect the page). Prodego ^talk 08:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was Grawp being his usual self. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he's been stalking me last couple weeks, lately reverting anything I do on any article and I have to revert it back, noting stalker vandalism. Not sure if that's best way to note the revert. CarolMooreDC 15:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If things get worse, feel free to ask me to make protections and such. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't looked at by others who can revert them and he obviously intends to just keep reverting them, so maybe you can protect for a couple weeks: Israel–Gaza conflict casualties 2006–2008, Barrett, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (which he did after you protected it, or it ended, not sure). He's reverting a couple people here: Stop Islamization of America. CarolMooreDC 04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Israel–Gaza conflict casualties 2006–2008 on my watchlist. I've put the other pages on 1 week protection. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I-G casualties is rarely changed, so I'm obviously suspicious of any AnonIP changes there - even the one that actually had an edit summary! CarolMooreDC 20:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I think he's back to socks. See Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis#User:Shegetz_deleted_tag - Grawp's other ID as I'm sure you know. CarolMooreDC 03:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JarlaxleArtemis is at it again as AnonIp on Islamophobic incidents. FYI. Thanksd. CarolMooreDC 02:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my absence caused some inconvenience. I'll try and step up it next time. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florencia Peña

THere is no video of her on wikipedia.Video de florencia peña hot (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking. I hope my reputation can be better in 2013. --Dede2008 (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New year, new start. All the best to you. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RTPking

You said that this editor was blocked, but they are still editing as far as I can see. BollyJeff | talk 01:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked but the block expired. I've reblocked them for 3 days for continued edit warring. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Could you look at Special:Contributions/Stealbared? Should be fairly obvious. nableezy - 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and page protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific sock

Hi, I've got a self-confessed sock on my talk page. In that thread, I name two other accounts used by this rather prolific block evader, whose master is Austereraj. There have actually been quite a few sock blocks of related accounts since those listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Austereraj. Should these have been noted anywhere? I ask because it is getting to the point where there are so many that I cannot recall them all! - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both Rajwikipedian and Legalaidclinicssdlc as suspected socks. I would probably file a reference SPI since the archives go all the way back to last February. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the rub! When you say a "reference SPI", do you mean file a case at SPI even though they are now blocked? And perhaps just note in that case that they are now blocked? I realise that this would then be added to the archives but it seems like additional work for the clerks and SPI always seems to have a backlog. I just want to be sure that I'm doing the right thing and, of course, you know a lot more about this than I do. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, just like the one I did here. Having more recent reports can be helpful if CU is necessary in the future (helps CUs have a reference point). Elockid ^(Talk) 15:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I hadn't considered the CU aspect. Will do. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx

Hi, I've provided the diffs in the page. Would you mind having another look at it? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the edit from this IP though, it does look like RTPking is

Unrelated to Padmalaskhmisx. Based on what I know, 2001:420:4:EA02:4DAE:3835:E2C3:C76F (talk · contribs) appears to be

Unrelated. I might have overlooked something. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I did block Rightjuncture (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HerutJuram

Hi Elockid,

I think he is back again : User:Wolfgang Fontaine.

Kind Regards, Pluto2012 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK Sock

User:24.13.248.100 appears to be a DUCK sock of User:Smokeablunt420 who you blocked - see this edit of Toaster and one of Smoke's. Vacation9 04:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 05:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User 14.102.103.100 is spamming again

Sorry if this is the wrong place - I wasn't sure how to notify the proper admin, but it looked like you had issued a block against this IP before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/14.102.103.100

It appears the block expired recently and they are at it again, inserting commercial links randomly. I fixed a few pages I saw but thought I would notify someone about it.

Thanks.

72.225.231.125 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Globaldesign

Hi. It looks like there's a huge sock farm here. Kumar1328 (talk · contribs), Nagarajanarasan (talk · contribs) (you've blocked already), Kannadarakshanavedike (talk · contribs) (blocked already) and Tamilselvanhosur (talk · contribs) (a clear quacking). — Abhishek ^Talk 04:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I create an SPI to dig out if there are more? — Abhishek ^Talk 04:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. Kumar1328 is surprisingly

Unrelated to Globaldesign. I have doubts on Tamilselvanhosur though (I didn't run a check). Elockid ^(Talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aminul802

No action to be taken over the painfully obvious meatpuppet? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also forgot to post a block notice to Aminul802 talk. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, meatpuppets are usually not dealt with at SPI. We usually just block the socks and suspected meatpuppets are left for another forum to decide what to do with them. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC2 protections

Just wanted to let you know — someone who agrees with your PC2 protections of pages like Transdev York has used them as evidence for an argument to extend the use of PC2. You can find the discussion in the "PC2 for Mangoeater targets" section of WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not urgent but...

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know the history of Maasranga Television

At December 1 Maasranga Television was deleted for A1. But I want you to watch the article history again if there was any problem with my article. I'm requesting you cause I know that admins can watch a deleted page's history. Please can you help me? Also give me a talkback message at my talk page.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 10:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Elockid. You have new messages at Pratyya Ghosh's talk page.
Message added 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for accepting my request for Maasranga Television. Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Elockid ^(Talk) 14:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matchurine

Matchurine (talk · contribs) - sock of who? Giant Snowman 15:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I'm vaguely aware of the name but not enough for DUCK to register; what should I look out for in future? Giant Snowman 15:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment towards 72Dino (talk · contribs) (see their talk page for example) is a good clue. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Giant Snowman 16:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Japan's section is considerably improved and I took out some unnecessary things like the broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebusadams (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:TPO. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am GeorgianJorjadze and I want my original account back. Please Elockid.

Hello Elockid. I never received your message back in December. I am tired of being hiding all the time but I cannot be without Wikipedia. I was creating all these socks because my original account which is GeorgianJorjadze is blocked with indefinite period without giving me a hope that in some month(s) term I can be back on Wiki. I understand I fucked up many things but cannot you just reconsider unblocking my original account for god's sake. Please give me a chance. I want my original account. At least give me a defined block term and I will know when I will be able to be back and contribute with that account. No more socks, edit wars etc. I cannot live without Wiki so please give me another last chance and give my original account back and unblock it or at least block it but not with indefinite period of time but some months and then I will know when I can use it again. I regret everything what I messed up. I will wait for your reply here on your page. GJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.49.102.90 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You probably want to look at the the standard offer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeorgianJorjadze. The problem is that we've tried responding to you and explaining to you what you must do to edit again. However, you keep trying to come back without taking our advice. Furthermore, you deliberately lied to us with your newest account, Lovingoni (talk · contribs). I am reluctant to unblock as a result of this. Pretty much the only way now to get unblocked is to take the standard offer (see the link that Jasper gave above). Elockid ^(Talk) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Elockid give me a last chance and be my supervisor. You can check all my edits. All of them will be a contribution-oriented. I promise. I will keep my word this time. Please just a last chance. I want my original account back. Tell me what should I do? GJ— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.49.102.90 (talk • contribs)

As Elockid said, at this point you will likely only get this account unblocked by following the standard offer, which includes not editing nor socking for 6 months straight, in order to demonstrate that you truely know that sockpuppetry is bad. Elockid and other users cannot be forced to supervise every single one of your edits, so much of it will involve you demonstrating that you can hold yourself accountable to avoid edit warring or other disruptive activity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jasper. What does that mean exactly? My indefinite block will be changed to 6 month term block? And please don't block my current IP address as I am not going to sock any more. This is the only way for me now to talk to Elockid by this IP address. GJ

I agree with Elockid and Jasper. Read, very carefully, the Standard Offer page (WP:OFFER). At the very minimum, it means waiting six months without any editing activity on any articles at all — no sockpuppets, no logged-out IP edits, no nothing. Some people might say this doesn't strictly apply to user talk pages, but there really isn't any need for that anyway if you're hoping to come back via the Standard Offer, so I'd strongly recommend not doing any IP-editing on anyone's talk page until the six months are done and you're ready to ask to come back. And note that the Standard Offer isn't an automatic thing; even after staying away for at least six months, you will still need to convince people to agree to let you come back. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rich. Glad to see you here. All right. I'll do that. Name me an exact month and day when I would be able to be back? GJ

Exactly 6 months starting with the date of the above comment, and it resets if you make any more edits. --Jasper Deng (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OUTDATED

um...for all I know the quality of life in 2009 France was first maybe it would be nice if you updated it. thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.219.132 (talk • contribs)

Obviously not. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

71.107.128.0/20 rangeblock

There is a request on Rumilofaniel's talk page to address a rangeblock you issued in November 2012. Please have a look at the talk page since this is preventing logged in users from editing. –BuickCentury Driver 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. IPBE was granted. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourchan Thread, now deleted, led to a vandal surge just right now

It involved at least a few of the pages you reverted and blocked the vandals from, it seems. 198.151.130.38 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website in question has the number "4" in front of the word "chan", and disallowing edits with the page's name in it does a disservice to Wikipedia. 198.151.130.38 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. I'll see if I can get the word out to step up on patrol. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: technical issues with blocks

Two questions:

I looked at your log to try to find the 1970 block that you mentioned at WP:VPT. Is it 75.145.8.58? The software tells me that this IP isn't currently blocked.
I noticed that you'd blocked a few IP addresses (e.g. 216.101.203.7) for odd periods of time, such as 3 years, 6 hours, 32 minutes and 24 seconds. I can't figure out the significance of blocking for 94,631,544 seconds; was it just a random number that you chose?

Neither of these questions are at all pressing (I'm more curious than anything else), so feel free to ignore this question if you're busy or you don't feel like answering. If you do answer, please leave me a talkback. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's 75.145.8.58. The block expired almost 2 hours ago (set it to Saturday 0:00 UTC). For the other IPs, I didn't input any random times (probably the most odd would be the one I put for Saturday). Elockid ^(Talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's simply that if you set a fixed expiry time the sofware calculates the time involved?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The software time appears to have been calculated correctly, but I think it's a display error. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of effort

I am sure that I am not the only admin whom this affects; not infrequently I see a nomination at AIV, or RFUB, or UAA, and occasionally at CSD; I look into it to verify the accuracy of the nomination, confirm it, and come back to find another admin has done the same investigation and beaten me to it. Do you think it would be possible to change the software so that when an admin sees a nomination we wants to investigate he could flag it with a notice saying "I'm doing it" or something similar? Ideally a one-click entry would be best; I am not a software expert. I suspect that this is not worth taking to the village pump - I'm just seeking an opinion, and I picked you because you just beat me to a block at AIV.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible, but I'm not sure. Maybe if we had a status thing like in SPI, that could be more helpful. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of article

Hi, Elockid. Thanks for semi-protecting Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community a few days ago, in response to local ( near to Brooklyn ) IPs repeatedly deleting content about one of the persons named as a perpetrator in that article. Based on this AN/I discussion, I've decided to go ahead an reinstate the deleted content. I wonder if you'd also be willing to reinstate the semi-protection for a week or so, too, since I notice that another Brooklyn IP just recently reverted sigmabot's appropriate removal of the protection notice, presumably (?) as a way to try to "warn off" others from editing the article. My concern is that without semi-protection being reinstated for a short period, the IPs and new accounts who are watching the article, and who I infer are members of the affected religious community, will continue their campaign of re-deleting the content every hour or so. Many thanks; no reply necessary, but if you do want to reply, feel free to do so right here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the page on my watchlist and will semi-protect if it happens again. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind; thank you. I'm not sure what's going to happen there re the content the IPs were so eager to expunge: It turns out some established editors were willing to let the IP's last removal stand, for now anyway, so feel free to remove the article from your watchlist, if you like; I'm sure it's already quite long. I'll drop back by if consensus does eventually restore the content, and IPs show up again to remove it. Thanks again; I appreciate your response, very much. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MdPepper

He's requesting unblock and disputing that he used other accounts. I can't find any indication in the block message what the sockmaster was or whether there was an SPI. Not that that wouldn't delegitimize the block, but it's easier to review the unblock request when you have some idea what the other accounts were. Can you share that information with me (by email, if you want to keep it confidential)? Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) That account belongs to Sonic2030. —DoRD (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's Sonic2030. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more info on their talk page. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will sustain the block. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACC

Hi Elockid, there is a request at ACC which DoRD would like you to have a look at when you get a chance. He's not sure who the intended target of your block is. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded and deferred. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Cyberpower678 will let you know when the user first edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 238: / Line 238: @@
 :I've put the page on my watchlist and will semi-protect if it happens again. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Elockid|Elockid]]</font></b></span>   <sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Elockid|Talk]]</font>)</sup> 19:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
+::That was kind; thank you. I'm not sure what's going to happen there re the content the IPs were so eager to expunge: It turns out some established editors were willing to let the IP's last removal stand, for now anyway, so feel free to remove the article from your watchlist, if you like; I'm sure it's already quite long. I'll drop back by if consensus does eventually restore the content, and IPs show up again to remove it. Thanks again; I appreciate your response, very much. Best, <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--[[User:Ohiostandard|OhioStandard]] ([[User_talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</span> 05:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 == MdPepper ==