User talk:Elockid/Archive 4

Removal of external link (globalurduforum.org)

Dear Elockid,

The website globalurduforum.org is an initiative to provide researchers useful information about Urdu writers. It is the most comprehensive website of its nature as it offers around 7000 names of different authors and details about them. I added its link in in the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu. However you deleted the link. I don't understand why? Can you please explain what is wrong with adding this link? If it should be introduced in some other way, you can introduce it in that way or suggest me what to do. For the moment, I have undone your change.

With best regards, 110.37.6.123 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELNO under number 10. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Elockid, The refereed instruction does not apply here as the website is not a social networking sites neither it is chat or discussion forum etc. Please see the site before making any decision. 110.37.6.123 (talk)

I did. But it doesn't look like a notable website (It's not even ranked on Alexa). So number 4. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Elockid, its true that this site has very low traffic but this does not mean that it is useless website. As mentioned earlier, there is no other website containing even half of the names presented at this website (ignoring for the moment brief information also given on globalurduforum). I think only this fact suffices as rationale for placing its link. I think that it could be a very useful resource for the researchers. 110.37.6.123 (talk)

Tell you what, you can always try to see if anyone else wants to add the website. Just use the talk page and see if anyone else agrees. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Need you to take a look at this

Hello, I need you to look trough a SPI. Its very important that you read through everything. From the beginning to the end. [1]

Then, what I would like is a comment from you on the last part of the evidence, where I point out this edit. The fact that after exclusively using the Nefer Tweety account to back Arab Cowboy on several articles for 7-8 months, (considering everything I have pointed out in the evidence) the NT account then contacts ACs sock before it was revealed that AC controlled it and "asks" him to go to the article. How can this have been a coincidence? Can you take a look at the evidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I get more time. This is so I can do a full review of the case. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, admin moonriddengirl said it looked quacky and that I should open a SPI [2], admin Shirik now said that the evidence is pretty compelling but since he is relatively new to SPI he wont act on it:[3]. I hope it wont take to long for you to look at it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at it actually. At glance it looks like meatpuppetry. But there was another suggestion that it could be sock of another, Wolof39, I believe. I'll have to look into that case too. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not Wolof395, he is unrelated in behaviour and CU. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove email access from User:UnitStock50

Another SGF email bomber. This sockpuppet wasn't mentioned in the SPI case. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked account

still at it on their talk page. Would you mind restricting talk page access for Livapol (talk · contribs)? That or deal with their request for unblock. ALI ^{nom nom} 18:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Addressed and watching the page. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

your comment on my talk page

Yep, I'd say it's the same person. Wikistar2 was blocked as a sock of Stravin a few weeks ago, this person removed the confirmation of that with "revert unconstructive edit". List of leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales Division) was a pet article of User:Watchover (another Stravin sock) and the other articles they have edited are Labor federal politicians (the person behind all these is probably a member of the opposition Liberal Party). I also have 121.216.* and 121.218.* edits from Watchover from 2009 (eg 121.216.62.191) Orderinchaos 14:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries - caught me at a good time, I was packing up and thought I'd check my Wiki watchlist before doing so. :) Orderinchaos 14:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch page problem.

There have been discussions about his nationality in the talk page and yet people change his nationality to Australian without discussing it in the talk page. Could you please take a look at this struggle? Thank you-- And Rew 16:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with him, sorry. So I can't be of much help. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Thanks for the blocks, but do you wanna block one more? User talk:Tommy2010sucks (lol) Tommy2010 17:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Tommy2010sucks blocked indef. Obviously a sock. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a fan. Tommy2010 17:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that too. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove email access from User:Armedunion48

Here's another ScienceGolfFanatic sockpuppet. Same email bombing. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sock help

Do you recognize the sockmaster behind Who ever I am2 (talk · contribs) (context)?
PS: Congrats on your adminship! Sorry I missed the RFA; glad that it didn't make any difference.:) Abecedare (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have an inclination that it's Nangparbat. I've blocked based on the duck test. It's probably unnecessary, but I told YM about it. Also, thanks for the congrats! Elockid ^(Talk) 11:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Keys43

You missed Aussie's pick-up of Slimsticky on the SPI. I have to say Slimsticky's userpage is starting to look similar in style to Keys43's past socks. Bidgee (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. Blocked and tagged. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Return of disruptive IP

Hi Elockid. You previously blocked User talk:64.222.111.5 for disruption and breach of 3RR. They would appear to be back as User talk:64.222.110.145 and User talk:NedTugent amongst others, inserting the same trivial edit at Spire of Dublin; see [4],[5], [6] and [7] again contrary to 3RR and against clear consensus. (For acccounts link see [8]). The page was recently semi-protected ,solely for this reason which appears to be the work of a single disruptive contributor. Could you perhaps take another look. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I reprotected the page. I'm not sure if this sockpuppetry yet since the IP is evidently here to be disruptive. I'll monitor the page to see if it gets out of hand. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also clashed with this IP on Local food, where s/he has been edit-warring in order to insert a deliberately false statement, which s/he believes ought to be true. The editor has also been adding inane comments to biographies, eg Keir Hardie, Neville Chamberlain and Zac Goldsmith.RolandR (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but the IP hasn't been overly active on those pages with exception to local food. I have watchlisted the pages and am monitoring the situation. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

IP is adding inane remarks to these and other biographies, and their associated talk pages. For example: [9], [10], [11] RolandR (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. These are unacceptable. The last inane comment added was about 2 days ago though, and you already warned them for that. It seems like they stopped the inane comments on article talk pages for now. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User Backfire 1

Hello mister can you unblock me? Backfire 1 I'm not Era7!!

Thanks88.204.157.122 (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a convincing unblock request. Also, please make an unblock request with an acceptable reason on your talk page following the instructions on the template. Another administrator may review your block there. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New Section

I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that the user known as Drork wrote the recent remarks on the talk page of State of Palestine. Is there a special feature in his writing that you immediately recognize? But even if you are right, what difference does it make? I understand you have some kind of dispute with him, but what does it have to do with the content of the article? The article clearly includes errors. Harlan Wilkerson clearly misinterpret sources. He is honest enough to bring links, so it is easy to see his misinterpretation of Prof. James Crawford. If you have time - read the sources yourself, if you don't, you might as well trust me on that. Furthermore, Harlan Wilkerson admitted to have political motivations regarding this article. This is enough to ask him not to edit this article anymore. All his contributions are in articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, and in all of them he introduces the same views with the same sources, which are controversial and/or misinterpreted by him. The fact that you have friends and foes on Wikipedia, shouldn't distract you from acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia itself. 79.177.45.157 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty consistent with the other Drork IPs. Consider the protection an arbitration enforcement. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, and you actually don't answer my question. Why won't you? 79.177.45.157 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the arbitration prevents you from editing any page within the Arab-Isreali conflict. Even one of the administrators who also took part in your arbitration has recently blocked you under a different IP. You're block evading by the way. Multiple editors have also identified who you are, not just Harlan Wilkerson. Also, the recent history of the State of Palestine article reveals that you are tendentiously editing being reverted by no less than 3 editors with no editors supporting you. This is clearly disruptive. I think you've exhausted the community's patience for now especially with the recent edits on ANI. I suggest before this becomes an indefinite ban, to take a break from Wikipedia for awhile, preferably 3 to 6 months and then ask for an unban and unblock request. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming I am some kind of person with whom you are disputed. I don't see how you've come to this conclusion, but that's really beside the point. You think that editor makes tendentious edits? Perhaps, I can't tell, because I haven't seen them. And yet, I was talking about recent edits and remarks made by Harlan Wilkerson. He admitted to have introduced politically motivated views into sensitive articles, and he also (deliberately?) misinterpreted the words of a renowned scholar, namely Prof. James Crawford (read the source that Harlan Wilkerson himself brought, he clearly interprets it in a way that would account for his political views). Your reaction was blocking not only the article, but also the talk page. For the naked eye, it seems as if you endorse Harlan Wilkerson's political effort. I'm not saying that you do, but this is how it seems. And again, personal disputes between Wikipedia-users are not the issue here. The articles come first. 79.177.45.157 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did not protect the article itself. That was Taelus who protected the page as you can see from the logs of the article. I'm not endorsing any political stance. I'm just enforcing arbitration and I do not believe I'm in a dispute with you. Articles are important, yes. But you can't build a good article if you can't follow policy and with comments like these. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So basically what you are saying is that you support a certain version because you think the people who introduced it are more polite? You know, polite people can say very wrong things. Politeness is not a guarantee of reliability. Since you directed me to that remark, I looked at RolandR's userpage. Apparently, his userpage is violating this policy: Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC (It took me some time to understand how to use all these initials and shortcuts). Did you notify him about that? Did you look into his edits considering the polemic views he expresses? Isn't it your job as an admin, especially once the Arbitration Committee published its ruling? And how about this remark by User:Harlan wilkerson? "Many Palestinians live in refugee camps outside the State of Palestine and Israel regularly deports more into internal or external exile. The fact that Israel has interfered with the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination has nothing to do with whether or not Palestine is a state." Talk:State of Palestine#Tempis Fugit (again) Did you notify him that this remark is political and polemic and in violation of the Arbitration Committee's ruling? Did you check his edits in light of this problematic remark? 79.177.45.157 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can have userboxes in their userpage. It's completely acceptable and the other conetnt on the userpage has a relation to Wikipedia (Ex: what they work on and interest in the project). There is no need to notify him of having an inappropriate userpage. Furthermore, I don't know why you insist that I am supporting a position. I am supporting neither you nor Harlan nor anyone else in this dispute. The protection is there to limit the disruption you're causing in which multiple editors outside of Harlan and Roland or members who edit Palestinian and Israeli articles, have taken other measures to prevent this disruption such as protection and blocks. This arbitration ruling for Palestine-Israel articles doesn't show Harlan being restricted, blocked or topic banned. But it mentions you though. Part of Wikipedia isn't just adding information from reliable or verifiable sources, it's also working together with other editors to create an article. But the approach that "abuse" from other editors is a good enough reason to not have diplomacy (rephrased from ANI) won't accomplish anything. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep implying that we know each other, although I'm not sure we've been introduced before. I haven't seen my IP on the Arbitration Committee's list, as you claim, but that's beside the point. Suppose a person does something wrong, aren't you obligated to warn him? Aren't you obligated to check his edits in light of that? What difference does it make if he's on the list? By your answers I get a clear impression that you have a strong political affiliation here, but you try to cover it up. I don't blame you for that, I just wonder if that's in the best interest of Wikipedia. 79.177.45.157 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But we have met before, not personally, but in Wikipedia. Check the ANI link I posted. I could also get a second opinion from Tim Song or Sandstein to identify who they think the person from your IP address is if you'd like. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Again note, Tim Song has blocked this address, 109.67.5.74 (talk · contribs) which is clearly you. I wonder what was the block reason. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI

I created a new case (this) at WP:SPI and added {{SPI|93.174.8.253}} to the page but it doesn't look right. Could you have a look and fix it? Many thanks. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

For the most part everything look right. I did make some minute changes. Some changes I made where renaming the case and removing an extra heading, add 93.174.8.253. Typically, if registered accounts are involved, the suspected account is listed as the suspected sockmaster instead of the IP. Also for future reference, you don't have to type anything in the Subject/headline box above the editing box since it creates extra headings. If you have any more concerns, feel free to ask them. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I don't do many SPI reports, I think this is my first in about four years of editing. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Misapplication of templated SPI

Hi again Elockid. I seem to have made a bit of a mess of reporting a suspected sock at User:Snowded's page. If you look at my recent contribs I think you'll follow what happened. I've tagged the unintentionally created pages for speedy deletion. Hope the mess doesn't lead to too much confusion for overworked admins. Sorry, haven't used that Twinkle template before. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. RashersTierney (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A duck?

Hey Elockid, do you think IP 99.151.173.23 quacks just like Fartass7, whom you blocked a little while ago? See the history of Hackforums. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so yet. Fartass blanked sections but added colorful language with that. IP 99.151.173.23 blanked sections but didn't add anything extra. From my experience, AT & T IPs have been stable. Autoblock should have taken care of Fartass' IP. But I'm not entirely sure. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK--thanks. But, ahem, what is "autoblock"? Obviously something that blocks the editor and the IP address it came from? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. It only last 24 hours though. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to have such a button! I wish I could autoblock my dog, sometimes. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Also, we could all use one in real life. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For your help with RfPP today! It sometimes feels like I'm the only admin who looks at that bloody board! I went over to Wikinews for a while earlier and returned to find AIV and RfPP completely backed up! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Also, glad to be working with you. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise :). Also, I note we haven;t had a GoldZest yet- that would be next if he remains as predictable as ever- any idea how to prevent it from being created? I hear it's possible, but my technical expertise are somewhat lacking! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Looks like we have to play whack-a-mole for a while until we get a more effective filter. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn. At least he's predictable. Gold is on my watchlist so if it's created, it should pop up. I'm not sure how imaginative he's going to get with the colours, but I've a feeling we don't have to wait too long to find out! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooh. He's moved on to white, Whitezest (talk · contribs). I wonder what color is next. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Francesca31 (talk · contribs)

Just to let you know I granted an unblock request to this user that you've previously blocked. This in no-way is meant to suggest that it was a bad block (I don't think it was), however the user has made an unblock request via email, and I've granted that per note left on the user's talk page. As this is for notification only, if you wish to discuss this further please drop a note on my talk page. Cheers, Peter 12:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

About sockpuppet :Force 101

I have been accused numerous times of sock puppetry (Force 101) and i accept the full responsibility, but now i have been making all constructive edits, and i wanted to ask you if you would forgive me ,and allow me to make constructive edits without blocking me, and i promise i will never make another disruptive edit to Wikipedia again. thanks for taking the time to read this!--STAND-UP-2-P (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)STAND-UP-2-P

I've brought this up on ANI for a community review. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--STAND-UP-2-P (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC) STAND-UP-2-P

Re: Vandalism on my page

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. The things that happen when you are off in dreamland. Thanks again....NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks for the help. -- œ^™ 21:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. It does look like you've been gaining quite a bit of attention. See the abuse filter log. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that. I'm actually kinda flattered. :) -- œ^™ 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering how they make their selections though. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh they posted a silly little message about me on 4chan with a link to my talk page. I'm guessing grawp got his panties in a bunch after he noticed me revdel'ing his pagemoves. -- œ^™ 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. Looks like Grawp's footprints are going down then. I can see why their fearless leader is so upset. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Force101

Force101 (talk · contribs) has posted an unblock request . I'm not sure that the request quite demonstrates that he appreciates the reason for the block, but it looks like he is penitent. As the blocking admin, would you like to look at this and ask for clarification if you think that is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User 76.175.144.175

I would suggest that we block 76.175.144.175 for personal attacks and such. He/she/it is being rude and using improper language. I would suggest permanent blockage. Sorry for bothering you Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message}

Talk page access revoked. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. He was just getting rather annoying. Somehow he managed to get onto a different IP. Mess up my talk page and tell me that it was the same user as the person who uses 76.175.144.175. Later Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC).

Your welcome. If this user returns under a different IP/account, feel free to leave me a message. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you're around

Can you take a look at Christianity in India? I'm going to head off for a while and don't have time to follow up on WP:AN3. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Keeping an eye out. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do find Kariappa07 (talk · contribs) suspicious. Dormant account that resumes editing today and joining the dispute? Seems fishy to me. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that is a sock, there's another one Sikolia07 (talk · contribs) also. These three are socks of each other for sure, but there's also a master account that I don't know (alternately, they could all be an off-wiki forum meatpuppet group, we see that in Indian caste articles regularly). I've just been quite low on wiki time recently, so I haven't been able to get these CUed, blocked and tagged. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree on Sikolia07. It could be meatpuppetry like you said though. Hopefully these accounts can be checked. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All blocked as socks by YM, IP blocked for a few days. —SpacemanSpiff 06:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Hopefully things will calm down for a while on that article. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalism

User: 59.126.160.16 has been reverting changes on several pages without stating a reason or discussing it on any talk page.

The issue is that this user specifically targets Taiwan related articles and compromises them. The Republic of China (Taiwan) should be listed in the GDP articles as it has an independent economy like that of many other territories, but should not be ranked, as its sovereignty is highly disputed.

It would be in WP's best interest to semi-protect the GDP lists from specific IP vandalism such as this. And this IP user should be temporary blocked from editing, until he or she begins participating in talk page discussions.

Thank you.Ao333 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever they're doing isn't vandalism. This is a content dispute. Persistent reverting may lead to 3RR blocks to both sides of the dispute or the page(s) fully protected if needed (It looks like someone else joined in in one of the articles the IP edited). Elockid ^(Talk) 12:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that this isn't the only dispute going on. There are several articles that Ao333 has decided to unilaterally change including the following (and possibly others):

• List of countries by GDP (real) growth rate
• List of sovereign states
• List of regions by past GDP (PPP)
• List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

It seems the main focus of his edits are to remove Taiwan from the rankings and in the case of the Historical GDP article, to remove the link to India in the article. In the past I have also had issues with Ao333 and while I have no intention of starting, I have some serious issues with Ao333's motives and I'm unsure as to whether he acts in good faith. For one, my belief is that he attempts to push a pro-China POV which seems contradictory to the goals of Wikipedia:NPOV. To cite an example, Ao333 removed several references on the HAL Tejas article and attempted to add his own claims without providing proper references in the article many of which were critical of the Tejas program. When I suggested the user provide reliable sources, he kept reverting my edits. In addition, when I questioned the user about whether he was a member on a forum known as defence.pk, he confirmed the he was also the same user there. I know that claims that a user on the website makes offsite are usually not relevant to the claims a user makes on the encyclopedia but given the similarity of topics and his contributions on both defence.pk and Wikipedia, I am skeptical of Ao333's commitment to impartiality and WP:NPOV. Please see his comments on defence.pk here [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. From calling Indians children, idiots or paranoid nuts, it seems pretty clear to me that Ao333 has either a dislike or distrust for them and while normally I would not call into question one's offsite edits but in this case, I think the similarity between his defence.pk and Wikipedia edits is too much of a co-incidence to ignore. If I were to choose one Wikipedia contribution made by Ao333 that best proves my case, I would choose this rather lengthy topic on the Fighter aircraft talk page.

Thanks,

Vedant (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the pages already watchlisted and will take action if needed. I think you should bring this up on ANI as well. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Vedant, sir, please note that I have never removed Taiwan from the ranking list, but de-ranked it as the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a politically disputed state with an independent economy, like that of many other dependent territories. As for India's historical GDP, it is fiercly debated in the disucssion page, which you are not a partcipant of. I am curious in knowing how I removed a link from an article when the "Indian subcontinent" is the original link in the first place? "India" was added after a | for redirect. I simply cannot understand why anyone would add a name, which is more misleading (as Pakistan was the center of commerce in the earlier centuries) when the link itself is valid and self-explanatory in the first place? In the case of HAL Tejas, the sources I removed were blogs from individual writers, which are not credible. Have I not convinced you to revert your own edits later on when I presented the radar source, which showed that the HAL Tejas is indeed a half generation lower than what it really is? In fact, it appears that a glance at your contribution history shows that not only do you solely edit Indian and Chinese related articles, you clearly have a pro-India and anti-China point of view on them. Your edits on the Chinese articles are highly disputed by other registered users. As well, your discussion page provides a comprehensive reminder that you have conducted several personal attacks against other well-established users. Complaining and providing off-WP evidence of a certain user goes to show that you are indeed obsessed with me, and your hostile intension should be called in to question.

I won't start a history rollback of what I and Vedant had in the past, but on the contrary to what he or she says, this is a bilateral issue. Please focus on my original request at monitoring user: 59.126.160.16, as he or she has recently reverted my edits without discussing in the talk page or stating a reason, yet again.Ao333 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning given to the IP. If they revert on the talk page again, they will be blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing.

Note, you are also at 3RR. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Elockid, can you please also protect the other GDP lists that were mentioned above? That edit war is still going on there also. I've reverted to the versions prior to whence it began, but I doubt it will stay that way. Night w (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Pages listed here also protected. 59.126.160.16 blocked for continued edit warring and disruptive editing. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks mate! Night w (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the pages on your watchlist Elockid. I'm somewhat reluctant to take this issue to ANI for now and prefer to keep this to a DR forum so long as User:Ao333 refrains from making edits on topics where said user's bias is apparent. However, if this behaviour persists, I'll do it.

@Ao333, please tell me what edits I have made to China-related articles that are in dispute? As far as I know I've only cited reputable news sources and my edits haven't been challenged by anyone other than some of User:Polylepsis' sockpuppets but because that user is indefinitely banned for blatant violation of Wikipedia policies, his objections are not relevant and neither is his opinion. Also, I'd like to know why you think I have an India-bias. I revert false claims on Indian pages just as I do on other pages. If that is not the case please let me know how but let me cite a few examples: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. No doubt if you look at the differences between the revisions I've provided, you'll see that my goal is to revert any kind of misreporting of facts and when I'm mistaken I always correct my edits. With respect to the article on Tejas, please tell me how these revisions ([32] [33] [34]) in which you removed sources or changed data were from bloggers. As far as I can tell, they are all from Indian media outlets. In addition, you insisted on changing the type of Radar that the aircraft was supposedly equipped with without actually providing a source substantiating your claim. Once you did provide a credible source (a dead link now by the way), I did not protest your edit. Note that, I still haven't removed the source you added even though it is not an accessible link anymore. To conclude, perhaps the strongest bit of evidence I have is that I have NEVER labeled the population of an entire nation as idiots, children or paranoid nuts nor have I expressed a continual desire to troll people when they make incorrect statements which is something I don't believe you can say.

As an addendum, don't you think it is somewhat hypocritical to accuse me of being prejudiced when you make a comment like this on the internet?

1) Woa, how conceited can you Indians get? Have you ever went abroad? Because if you had, you would know that the Japanese/Chinese are holy saints compared to the Indians. We group you guys with the Africans.

2) Oh right! I forgot that Indians have a life expectancy of 65 years! I guess it's in the Indian genes to have 22% lower IQ and live 10 years shorter than the average Chinese and Japanese.

3) Economic power? Wait, aren't you guys in debt? Don't you guys have a negative account balance? I recall that you guys have a trading deficit with both Japan and China. So, what does that denote? No one wants ur crap, and your "domestic" economy is developing on loans, with interest, which will only grow in times to come. By the way, relying on domestic economy means no one outside your country want you BSOD critical error softwares. Japan's economy is slowing down because it made too much use of its domestic economy. It had no buffer when the Plaza Accord came. At the time of crisis, China lifted domestic consumption by lowering interest and increasing wages -- something India has been doing for the past decade. What buffer do you guys have? Your 65 years of life expectancy?

4) Oh my god! India is diplomatically powerful? Yes, if dependent was what you meant... When's the last time you guys spoke up to the United States and Russia? I remember China not willing to stop manipulating its currency and being reluctant to sanction Iran and Japan kicking the US off of Okinawa and doesn't give a **** about western protests regarding whale meat. Will the Ruskies come to your aid when China takes Arunachal Pradesh? They'd just neglect you like Vietnam, LOL

5) Oh no! The Russian Federation will collapse the moment India stops purchasing its soviet-era arms. What will the Russians do with all their oil reserves?!

6) Political stability? Wasn't an Indian politician shot in public just a few days ago? It doesn't happen in China or Japan, lol...

7) The last time I checked, you guys still have 1/4 of Japan or China's economy. Mind you that India has 9 times the population of Japan and is growing at a much slower pace than China. I recall that the commies just grew 11.9% from Jan to Apr 2010, with Tokyo reporting their figures later this month.

8) Wasn't India still ruled by Britain years after WWII ended...? So, since India was a part of the British Empire, which was a part of the Allies during WWII, you guys should be permenant members of the UNSC too, right? I follow your logic!

9) Great record with the UN: don't have veto powers to make any difference.

10) "Military power," correction: "Imported military power"

11) "represents 1/6 population of the world" with only 2% of the world's wealth.

12) I cannot comprehend PPP. Doesn't that just mean defects made and sold in India are cheaper?

On that last point, if you cannot comprehend PPP, why are you editing articles related to PPP GDP?

Vedant (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, my apologies to Elockid as this discussion has clearly gone past the whole IP Vandalism topic. I can move this discussion elsewhere if you desire.Vedant (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you didn't get the PPP joke. Does this have to do with anything? In any case, I am very satisfied with the outcome of this dialogue.Ao333 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

@Vedant. I'm fine with it. If you would like to move the discussion, I have no problems with that either. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

@Elockid: Okay, I'll leave it here then and in the future if I do make a post on ANI, I will reference this discussion. Vedant (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

@Ao333: I guess you're having difficulty realizing why I'm suspicious of your motives. What about this comment you made on the Tejas talk page? On top of that, after SineBot signed your comment, you removed the signature. As you'll no doubt notice, I did remove the section primarily because I didn't feel the user who created the topic had any interest in improving the article which also explains why he's indefinitely blocked from editing. Ofcourse because another user had an issue with this and reverted my deletion, I left the section as is. Also, slightly off topic but please don't modify my response on your talk page. You're welcome to delete the entire section or just my response (as it's your talk page) if you feel that's necessary but please don't misrepresent me. Vedant (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. I'm aware that Ao333 is trying to bait Indian editors into flaming him and at the risk of it sounding like a personal attack, either learn how to edit Wikipedia, or don't. Let's see...

* Removes obligatory signature from a (derogatory) comment on an article's talk page: x

* Calls justified warnings "vandalism" x

* Mocks a French accent: x

* Edit wars using public forum threads as sources: x (entire page history may give more insight)

* Openly admits to having an anti-India bias off-site (above).

From here I think assuming good faith would be stupid. GSMR (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

You protect the article without even a comment on the talk page? You have no clue what the dispute is about (a very minor one). Please understand the problem before putting a temporary stop to it. Surely admins have opinions? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For example: I originally reverted the removal, but I saw Taivo's point and now agree with him. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See the thread above. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

request for unprotection

The Lost Symbol was protected for a very long time in response to not so much vandalism. I went to the protecting admin some time ago and got no response. 74.108.86.83 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please go to WP:RFPP and request for unprotection there. I'm not going to be on for much longer. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. Can you do it for me 74.108.86.83 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The request can seen here. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you 74.108.86.83 (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New section

Hi elockid i wanted to edit floyd mayweather jr page because there are many mistakes on there but i cant. how do i edit a semi protected page? can u give me access please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagonj786 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please go to WP:PERM/C and request having confirm status. This will allow you to edit semi-protected pages. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your reversal on my talk page! Lova Falk talk 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the mop! Elockid ^(Talk) 19:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Lila Cheney 336

I see you archived Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lila Cheney 336/Archive. I added four sockpuppets currently active. I'm only guessing that correct procedure for an archived sock investigation. Please let me know if I should have done it differently. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Once an investigation is archived, you need to file a new one. If you need a CU to look at the case use this link and fill out the requested/necessary fields. Otherwise, just use this link and do the same. If you need any other assistance, please feel free to ask. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ikaw Ay Malikot

Hi! This title that you protected from creation was recreated again, this time with a different title, Ikaw Ay Malikot (film). You might want to see that. :) --Bluemask (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Article deleted and salted. Article creator blocked as a sockpuppet. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

on my user page. I appreciate it! Wikipelli ^Talk 02:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All kinds of stuff for you.

		Sunshine!
		Hello Elockid! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

NerdyScienceDude has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello Elockid, NerdyScienceDude has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For pwning the vandals at WP:AIV, I, ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐), hereby award Elockid the Admin's Barnstar. Keep up the good work! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much NSD! Elockid ^(Talk) 02:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

New section

how do i edit floyd mayweather jr page because there are major errors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagonj786 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the link I gave above. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

173.236.31.114

Zzuuzz has been blocking users like this with a 5 year proxy block. There have been ALOT of them today on the same talk and user pages. This person is all over the place. Wish the proxy bot was doing its job to prevent this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started to notice. Thanks for the info. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell happened at my talk page as well with the other pages? Well, whatever it was, thanks for removing it. Looking at your logs, the ip's kept you pretty busy. wiooiw ^(talk) 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Some person has been posting some non-public/sensitive information all around the place. It's been deleted to prevent public view as a result. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change

Since you have previously acted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change, I would like to draw attention to new activity. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Case handled. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for peer review on article about Emperor Pedro II of Brazil.

Hi! If you have interest and time, could you take a look at Pedro II of Brazil and share some thoughts on what it is lacking to be nominated to Featured article? Here is the the peer review page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pedro II of Brazil. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll look at it when I have sufficient time. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive Socks

FYI? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:Swamilive

216.26.2xx.xxx

• User talk:216.26.202.110 contributions
• User talk:216.26.202.187 contributions blocked on 16 & 21 May 2010
• User talk:216.26.211.12 contributions
• User talk:216.26.213.34 contributions Blocked 15 April 2010
• User talk:216.26.213.69 contributions blocked on 26 May 2010
• User talk:216.26.214.39 contributions Blocked 12, 14 & 28 April 2010
• User talk:216.26.219.104 contributions Blocked 10 May 2010
• User talk:216.26.222.47 contributions blocked on 16 May 2010
• User talk:216.26.223.38 contributions
• User talk:216.26.223.175 contributions

216.211.xx.xxx

• User talk:216.211.52.170 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
• User talk:216.211.52.232 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
• User talk:216.211.53.205 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
• User talk:216.211.72.66 contributions
• User talk:216.211.73.24 contributions
• User talk:216.211.93.108 contributions blocked on 29 April 2010
• User talk:216.211.95.252 contributions
• User talk:216.211.97.11 contributions Blocked 7 & 9 April 2010

216.211.xxx.xxx

• User talk:216.211.102.216 contributions
• User talk:216.211.117.165 contributions

Pages vandalised

• Brigadier
• Brigadier General
• Charles Edward Merriam
• Extra time
• Garrison
• Garrison Sergeant Major
• Rear admiral

FYI? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I've got 216.26.2xx.xxx for 2 weeks. It seems Tim Song also blocked 216.211.xx.xxx for 1 year. We should be seeing less of them. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear. But I don't like that word "should".

Perhaps you might like to block both 216.26.2xx.xxx and 216.211.xxX.xxx for a year too?

Then ALL of us WILL (not "should") see less of them for a while. Cheers & thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

216.26.2xx.xxx is a bit busier than the 216.211.xx.xxx, so I'm a little hesitant to extend the block. If they do come right back though after the block expires, and if the edits from that range are Swamilive or most of them, another rangeblock will be implemented. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable plan. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Coramandel23 blanking

I noticed that you had reverted the blanking of User talk:Coramandel23, who had blanked a series of unblock requests following what the user had described on the unblock-l mailing list and on her page as a privacy-related rename based on real-world concerns. Whether or not this is so, this user has indicated that he or she is leaving Wikipedia permanently and had requested the rename as his or her final action. I believe that allowing the user to blank this page will help facilitate his or her disengagement from Wikipedia. On the other hand, I agree completely with you that the user must not be allowed to post any future unblock requests without disclosing the prior requests that were made and declined, especially given a history that has been described as problematic. Accordingly, I have substituted a note on the talkpage which I believe should be self-explanatory. I trust you will find this an acceptable resolution, but if you have any concerns please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an acceptable resolution. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polkerpatty

Hi, you just indef-blocked this guy. Can you now block his talk page access? He's making a nuisance of himself. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Already did. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I was a few seconds behind. Anyway, thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also, since Polkerpatty stated that they have a new account, you can message me also if Polkerpatty comes back. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Latin America

Hi! I am having a little problem in the article Latin America with editor SamEV about Brazilian demographics. The main article about Brazil explains that the "Pardo" population is a a broad category that includes sub-categories such as the Mullattoes, Caboclos (known as "Mestizos" in Hispanic-America) and Cafuzos (known as "Zambo" in Hispanic America). In the Latin America article there is a table that says that 39.1% of Brazilian population are "mulatto" when the correct should be "Pardo". I explained that carefully in the talk page (See Talk:Latin America#Conflict with editor SamEV) but editor SamEV not only ignored my remarks but insist on reverting all my edits. I also tried to reach his in his own talk page but he simply erased my message. That is not a helpful behavior of his. I should had simply requested to an administrator to block him per the 3 eevert rules and asked for an arbitration since his behaving as his owns the article. However, I want to avoid that since the issue is something very simple, that is, nothing more than to clarify the table that present Brazilian demographics. As it is know, it says that there are 0% Caboclos or Mestizos (the majority of the population in Northern Region, Brazil, Northeast Region, Brazil and Central-West Region, Brazil) and 0% Cafuzos or Zambos. Could you, please, share your thoughts about it in the article talk page? Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I need a little refresher on the multiple terms regarding Mestizo. Would you mind giving a refresher? Elockid ^(Talk) 21:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet alert

I don't know if you handle sockpuppets, but HerbEA2 (talk · contribs) seems to be exhibiting obnoxious behavior even though he does lay out welcome mats. Furthermore, he earlier used now-blocked usernames HerbEA (talk · contribs) and HerbEA1 (talk · contribs) and has recently butchered the sockpuppet report against him (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA1). Just a heads up. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I handle sockpuppets. But it seems that HerbEA2 has already been blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you anyway. \I'll tell the blocking admin about the guy. He even impersonated Jimbo Wales, for God's sake. Do you know any admin with a checkuser authority to work on the investigation I've linked above? Also watch out for someone with the name HerbEA3 (and other related usernames). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed. A CU should be looking at it shortly. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI posting problem

Could you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcus Brute?

I tried to post a new request regarding this, but it doesn't look like it took.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean the SPI wasn't added to queue. I've added the case to the queue. If this isn't want you meant, please message me back. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup... that's what I was worrying about. - J Greb (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA

Thanks for moving the SPI. I used the wrong usernames in the wrong places on the Twinkle form, and I didn't want to move it because I wasn't sure what else would need to be changed. Anyway, thanks!  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, the histories for two cases have been split. Perhaps it would be better to delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA, move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA1 (with the old history) onto it, and then create a smaller page at the HerbEA1 page. That way the histories will be merged. I dunno, it's a little complicated now that people are editing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA, is there still a way to merge the histories, or is it not worth the effort?  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Merged. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd left a message on Bubba hotep's page on HerbEA. I don't know if this may work, but just giving my two cents. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 12:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy Elockid's Day!

User:Elockid has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Elockid's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Elockid! Peace, Rlevse 00:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much Rlevse! Elockid ^(Talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Star of the barn variety

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You're like some mega sysop. 3 times tonight have I needed an Admin handy and funnily enough 3 times have you been there to perform the Adminitrative action I needed. Thanks for the help, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Elockid ^(Talk) 00:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New Section

You have reverted a perfectly legitimate edit in "British Mandate for Palestine" and allowed introduction of errors into the article, just because you think I am someone with whom you have a dispute. This conduct DOES NOT become an admin. Actually you should be banned from Wikipedia for such conduct, let alone act as an admin. You can still correct your wrong doing. Please do it now. 109.67.37.106 (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To be more precise: had you bother to read Mr. Wilkerson alleged sources instead of automatically siding him due to your alleged dispute with someone here, you'd see that what he did was totally out of line. He referred to a source saying: "Frequent reference has been made has been made to the desirability of the Jewish State having 'an outlet to the Red Sea and the Port of Aqaba'". This is what your friend Mr. Wilkerson wrote: "there were suggestions that it would be desirable to incorporate part of Transjordan's territory into the proposed Jewish state". Is this a common sense conclusion? NO. Has Mr. Wilkerson violated the rules of Wikipedia? YES. Have you assisted him? YES. Motivation? He is your friend, you think the person who corrected the error is someone whom you don't like. Is this behavior the kind one would expect from an admin? Definitely NOT. It is still not to late for you to correct your wrong doing. Do it NOW. 109.67.37.106 (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please follow directions and start with a subject/heading. Please also read the banning policy regarding your edits. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI clerk

Hello, I am interested in being an SPI clerk. Can you coach me? I have worked on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bischof-Ralph which needs clerk attention atm and I was wondering if I could do it. Thanks. Biscuit (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't coach you, sorry. Only full time clerks may be able to coach new clerks (I'm not a full time clerk). Elockid ^(Talk) 11:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics of Algeria

Hey Elockid, how are things? Please have a look at the article, which you protected. There is a POV editor at large there, Ekarfi13, who has a habit of making unexplained and possibly POV (political) edits which in some places (Berber people) remove sourced content. I am reverting their changes in this article, but your note about sockpuppetry aroused my curiosity. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything's well. Thanks for asking. Now, about Ekarfi13. I'm not entirely sure on this one. There are some similarities like the type of articles they are editing and where they're editing (DNA). But, unlike the previous IPs and AlgeriaLove that focused mainly on Haratin for quite a while, Ekarfi13 doesn't seem to be interested in it. I think that requesting for CU assistance would be helpful here. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AN Protection

Might want to go ahead and protect ANI as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can since it might be treated as a pre-emptive protection. Keeping an eye out though. Seems like Jeske Couriano is also on top of it. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't see many would say anything to you about pre-emptive protection, but I understand your point. Good work so far. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Karmaisking rangeblock?

Can User:Karmaisking be range blocked? He's prolific (check out his socks!), persistent, rude and disruptive, and always causes a problem on pages that he 'contributes' to unless someone (usually me) catches, tags and reverts him early in the process.

I've noticed that when he uses IP socks, there are no edits from those IPs except for his. This leads me to believe that he can be range blocked without much collateral damage. Are you someone who can look into this?

Thanks, LK (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't check into this since only one IP is present a given range (I need at least two, preferably 3 on the same range to make an effective rangeblock) and the rest are accounts. The only users who can really check into this are Checkusers since they have access to the IPs accounts use. Hope that helps. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Loren Legarda

Pls see the Revision history of Loren Legarda. its frequently vandalized by IPs 122.x.x.x, 120.x.x.x . Can u pls up the protection level and RV the vandalism, I am fagged by RVs. Thanks Arjun^codename024 06:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 10:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Visa policy of Hong Kong

Can you at least revert it? I'm 3RR'd out. HkCaGu (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm allowed to. Sorry. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the block and the page protect. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

New section

Hi Elockid,

Can you please unlock the article Loren Legarda. I am from the Office of Sen. Legarda and I need to make changes on the article. Some content and sources included are damaging to my principal therefore I want to take it out. Thank you for your consideration. biangotz 03:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biangotz (talk • contribs)

There is no need. You should already be autoconfirmed which means that you should be able to edit the article now. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Done editing Legarda article. Hopefully it won't get reverted. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biangotz (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

67.181.17.50

That is possibly a Grawp sock. There was another user who posted the same thing (see User:Mr.Wittgenstein) yesterday and was blocked indef as a Grawp sock. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like MuZemike took care of the IP. I think it's more of a meatpuppet though. But I could be wrong. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie :) I personally believe that AN and ANI should be permanently semi-protected and any anons and new accounts could use a seperate page (perhaps WP:AN-ANON or WP:ANI-ANON). Could be just as watched as AN or ANI, but vandalism on the main AN and ANI pages would be down to nothing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You could try proposing a change. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I might. It will probably get swatted down quite quickly, but it is worth a try. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You never know until you try. Right? Well, some users do have protected talk and unprotected talk pages, so it might not get swatted down so quickly and this is sort of like that. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I proposed it on AN. You can see the thread here. If you wish, you can put in your 2 cents, but not saying you have to. I have noticed some editors (mostly admin) have the protected/non-protected pages. Never needed one myself. We'll see how the proposal goes. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought I would let you know, the idea was firmly swatted down. Got some good, constructive feedback though. Oh well, didn't hurt to try. :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question for ya...why are admins not revdeleting the Grawp edits anymore? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just wondering that when I saw you undo your revdeletions. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why. I guess they're not "severe" enough. I saw that the actions that were revdeleted yesterday were restored. I'm guessing that were just keeping them then. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

prot req

Hello Elockid. Can you protect User:Tommy2010/Status [edit=autoconfirmed] [move=sysop] indefinitely? Thanks!  – Tommy²⁰¹⁰_message 18:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Kunan Poshpora incident

Hi.. i am not sure whether you will be interested in this, but i have seen your wisdom bringing neutrality to many articles. I would like you to take a look at the mini edit war going on at Kunan Poshpora incident. I see that no one other than the 2 concerned parties (one being myself) are very much interested in the article. Both of the parties have some innate POV i guess. Could you bring it some neutrality and end the repeated revs. Thank You for your time in advance. Arjun^codename024 15:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but I'll try my best to see what I can do. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits look valid enough to me and honestly, I'm not finding anything wrong with it. I don't also understand Kabuli's statement here. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pls keep this article in your watchlist. Tnx Arjun^codename024 06:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As you appear to be active

any chance that you could go in and revdelete this revision and the subsequent attempts by an IP to remove it? Thanks, --Terrillja _talk 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I got a 2nd opinion on this since I'm still not really familiar with the policies of revdelete and I don't edit BLPs regularly. It seems that this kind of defamation is pretty normal, and as such, should probably not be revdeleted. However, Oversighters have had revdelete for a much longer time and much more experience with revdelete policies, perhaps, you could try asking one of them for some input. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask someone who I have seen using the revdelete. Thanks, --Terrillja _talk 18:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Eurohoopsters

As you were the one who blocked Basketnews (talk · contribs), you might want to see Eurohoopsters as well, as he seems to be admitting that he's also Basketnews (and even created an SPI on himself, which I assume is unnecessary). —Soap— 21:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the memo. Personally, I do think it's a nice step up. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Elockidsock

You didn't happen to create Elockidsock (talk · contribs), did you? Otherwise, I think I know who this is. –MuZemike 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create it. Whoever you think it is, is probably it. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. After a certain edit which will shortly be oversighted, I know well who this is. –MuZemike 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE -IMPORTANT!!!-

Could you please leave Germany at the top in the page "List of countries by exports", because otherwise I will loose 50 bucks :O. Just for 12 hours!!! PLZZ PLZZ PLZ!!!!!!!! Until 3pm GMT PLLLLLZZZZZ!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.237.148 (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's incorrect and vandalism. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, but pleeeeeeaaaaassseee!! I will loose alot money!!!!!!! 50€ !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.237.148 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you shouldn't have made this kind of bet in the first place. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just until 3 pm GMT, or make Germany and China even plzzzzzz just for 12 hours!!!!! PLZ!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.237.148 (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I already explained to you why this edit cannot be reinstated. Furthermore, a bet that had the motive to vandalize Wikipedia does not show very good intentions. So I see no reason why to make these kinds of edits. The answer will be no and won't change. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to vandilize Wikipedia, this was just my last hope to keep & get my 50 €. OK byby, have a nice day greets from Vienna ;( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.237.148 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're going to lose 50 Euros. But please understand that there are policies that everybody has to follow. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• You want me to blank this section due to trolling and warn the user or do you have this covered? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern, but I think I have this covered, hopefully. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mtelaviv

Looks to me like Basketnews is socking again as Mtelaviv (talk · contribs). He seems to think he is being more subtle about it, but the sound of quacking seems especially loud to me. And this after his "confession" and "apology" and your reducing his block. Yworo (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mtelaviv blocked indef and tagged. Basketnews' blocked extended to 6 months. Next time will be indefinite. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect this guy won't be giving up. Sigh. Yworo (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If more socks come, please feel free to message me again. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do, though I will be fairly busy in real life for a few days. There are a couple other editors watching though so I'm sure it'll be handled just fine. If you keep an eye on the AfD you'll probably see any new (or revived old) ones. Yworo (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD watchlisted. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

One more, Please delete (talk · contribs). (I'm surprised that username was available). Yworo (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep on eye on this one. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

McKenzie

Elockid:

Of course, we are sending notices to resolutions and arbitrations upon learning of this matter. It would take way too long and is inappropriate to explain this recent ordeal to you regarding this page. Do you propose another route or can you lead me in the right direction to remove this unauthorized advocacy on behalf of Mr. McKenzie. Please advise. (Please delete (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

If this is a legal matter, please contact the foundation. For any other matters, please use ANI. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Elockid:

Granted, if I were you, I would think the same that every account created is a sockpuppet but this one is not. There was a severe breach of trust inside and outside of our office as it relates to this matter and Mr. McKenzie is not and has never desired these advocates to create a public forum around his name and likeness. We do not want to approach Wikipedia about the merits of having a page in the least. We are trying to exhaust all measures to figure out what we can do about Mr. McKenzie privacy within this contracted media group/SEO firm's unprofessional and unethical actions. I understand that you don't want to be bothered with this matter any more than we do but the foundations written policy is "that the foundation urges that human dignity and personal privacy be take into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are being described on the project's website be treated with patience, kindness and respect." I will not leave you any more messages and thank you for what you had to offer. "Please delete (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)"

As I said, you may use ANI and get a second opinion. You may also want to try Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Hey Elockid. Could you have look at WP:RPP#Hosni Mubarak for me and see if a rangeblock is possible. Seem they have an IP-hopper making a nuisance of himself. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible, but only for a week at most. Almost every single edit except one within the past week has been the same person. From the IPs on that page, the range would have to 41.235.168.0/21 which catches all the IPs within that range that edited that page. Any bigger and it's going to effect lots of innocent users. Seeing as they're only editing one article and the IPs geolocate to a major urban area, I think a protection would be better here. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I know nothing about rangeblocks and if I attempted it would undoubtedly end up blocking an entire continent or something! I've protected it for 2 weeks. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I doubt that will happen. We can only block ranges up to /16 ranges. Continent ranges are probably /8 or lower ranges. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Is this an editor you recognize? Justinraystone (talk · contribs). He's blocked as a vandalism-only account, but I noticed that his second edit was to copy one of your block notices to an inactive editor. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure who it is. Sorry. Thanks for the memo though. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet problem

Hi again, Elockid.

I have a problem with user CashRules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His edits indicate to me that he's the indefinitely blocked user UnclePaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), known for his rabidly anti-Dominican bias. I've only ever filed one RFCU, and it was against him. I know that in RFCUs the admins can still decide the issue based on the how similar the edits are. Is that still the case? What do you recommend I do? SamEV (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the socks of UnclePaco seem to have gone stale, so checkuser won't really be helpful unless you suspect that CashRules as other socks around. For now, I'd recommend filing an SPI case without checkuser. If you need help, I'll be glad to help. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into filing an SPI then. SamEV (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi.

Are you here right now? I've finished putting together the SPI request, but I think it would be great if you took a look at it before I submit it. SamEV (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could put your opinion here [35]CashRules (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

@SamEV: I can't seem to find the SPI. But I'll take a look at it once I find it.

@CashRules: commented. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link, Elockid: [36]. SamEV (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. The new link is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just informed him of it. SamEV (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good case? Or should I try to find more evidence? It's a tedious task, but I'll do it if necessary. SamEV (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. Though I'd try to break up the paragraph, since big chunks of text are usually avoided. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. SamEV (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Elockid, would you provide your opinion re:this comment I made? I know you gave your opinion yesterday re: the proposed edit, but things have changed substantially since then, because there's now a formal report with evidence question CashRules eligibility to edit. Is it unreasonable of me to propose that, since the evidence seems so strong, the user not be allowed to edit or propose controversial changes? Please give your opinion at Talk:Dominican Republic. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, can I reply to his "Comments by accused parties" at the SPI request? SamEV (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course. You can reply in the same section also. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Tx.

Elockid, could you do me a great favor? Could you please comment about the simple issue of whether or not there are reasonable questions about the user CashRules and his motivations and his attitude for him to be denied editing on controversial topics, at least until the SPI is done?

Please express yourself about that. I'll accept your judgment just fine, whichever way it goes. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems more of a personal issue. Do you want me to comment here to keep things a bit more private or in the talk page? Elockid ^(Talk) 02:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you state it. I just want to know your opinion. SamEV (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll just state it here. It's a little hard to fully understand, but as a clarification so I don't comment on the wrong thing, do you want me to comment about CashRules' motivations, whether or not they should be questioned, as well as how he/she is reacting to not being able to edit? Elockid ^(Talk) 03:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, about questioning his motivations. If you also want to say anything else, that would be bonus. SamEV (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know whether or not his motivation for adding sex tourism should be questioned or not. At glance, his edits do seem to be in good faith. His/Her motivations could be because it's as widespread or a big part of life in the DR as he/she says. But as stated in the talk page, I'm not entirely sure about it. Based on other experiences, I think others will AGF here. Since AGF is a big fundamental principle, questioning could lead into bigger problems in the future.

If CashRules is related to UnclePaco and to an extent, Mykungfu, then reverting him is justified as Mykungfu is a banned user. However, per the SPI, there isn't enough conclusive evidence to connect Mykungfu with UnclePaco and I don't think he's de facto banned just yet. So it might be best to leave the reverting for now since the risk of getting block by either is increasing as it seems and there isn't obvious evidence that most people will agree with. I hope that helps.

I do note that he/she is verging on tendentious editing though. Seems like there's just to much rushing going around. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. OK.

So you support keeping this edit: [37]? SamEV (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it at the moment. Though, how the references are cited could use some improvement (Add title, date retrieved, author, etc.). Elockid ^(Talk) 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's official. Consensus is against me; I'm outnumbered, so I'll stop opposing Bill's edit.

Thank you, Elockid for your patient help. SamEV (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Elockid, could you look at the talk page and recent edits of user CashRules and advice him to stop disrupting? SamEV (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you are aware of this, Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CashRules (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

British Empire Protection

Thankyou! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan Army

Howdy. I fear I may have walked into the middle of an edit war between Rc3003 and Mercenary2k (at Pakistan Army) without paying due attention and without doing my homework. How do you advise I extracate myself. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd self revert since if I was in this situation as I wouldn't have a lot knowledge to give a good explanation to justify my change. But if you intend to look at the article further, then I'd explain in the talk page the reason. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

block-evading anon ip

Hi. Fyi, the Greekboy12345er6 (talk · contribs), which you blocked, have returned with an anon ip, making identical edits; 70.191.200.200 (talk · contribs). --Soman (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ground Zero has already blocked the account now, sorry to bother. --Soman (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

IP vandals

Please look at [this]. Can you handle it? --Bsadowski1 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy. Looks like I missed the party. It looks like Ckatz handled it themselves. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Filing SPI

I have just filed an SPI case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mageclansoftheeast but not so sure if I did it right? Sleep1panic (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks good to me. wiooiw (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks fine to me. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help here. I'm several months from understanding range blocks and I appreciate the intervention. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

My IP address, 75.255.18.229 was blocked by you for long term abuse. I am confused because I have only made 3 edits under that account and they were all constructive. Please advise. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabianknight07 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never blocked that IP as you can see from the block log. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. That is strange. This is what appears when I try to make an edit:

Editing from 75.233.0.0/16 has been disabled by Elockid for the following reason(s):

Long-term abuse: repeated vandalism This block has been set to expire: 00:58, 25 June 2010.

Something I just noticed is that the two addresses I posted are different. Would you mind double checking the second IP address? I apologize if I'm not going about this the correct way. I'm fairly new to this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabianknight07 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 75.233.0.0/16 is blocked recently due to repeated abuse as you can see here. 75.255.18.229 appears to be you, but the IP range I blocked doesn't seem to be you and shouldn't affect your IP as you can see here. Perhaps there is a glitch in the system. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that was just a typo in the IP. I've added IP block exemption to your account for now, Arabianknight07, so you should be OK now. Amalthea 16:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking advice/assistance

I posted a request for semi-protection that was declined [38]. I’m not looking to a different admin to overturn – but your responses on the requests for protection page suggest experience in dealing effectively with vandals. I’m wondering what to do in the case I’ve raised. The problematic editor has a long history of using anonymous IPs (and at one point a registered account) for disruptive editing – including recently removing most of the contributions of another editor from the Stephen Ambrose article talk page. I’ve recently looked at edit histories, and can track his edits back for a couple years (for a core set of articles) – with many frustrated editors complaining (about deletions, blanking pages, inserting expletives, demeaning language against other editors, wikihounding, unwarranted accusations against other editors, sockpuppetry, etc.), sometimes filing formal complaints, etc. He sometimes makes valid edits, but his behavior would probably have led to a block long ago were he using a single registered username. But nothing can be done, since he just switches IPs, and also shifts IP ranges (which would seem to make range blocks ineffective). I’ve had no direct conflict with him myself (up to now have treated him with kid gloves and have never reverted his edits, recognizing the danger), but am concerned that he may now target me, given my posting of the request for semi-protection. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Eurytemora (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Usually when dealing with vandals, a block is the first step. That usually does the trick. If they come back, usually editing the same pages as you mentioned above, the pages that have been most disrupted are usually protected. However, they are only protected if usually they target the page(s) are disrupted everyday/every other day or there is a significant amount of disruption. This is usually the basis of determining whether or not a page should be protected. If semi does not work, a rangeblock can be tried. This is only reserved in special circumstances such as if all/the majority of edits from a specific range are disruptive or if protection has shown ineffective. For example, they from one page to another.

If this is long-term abuse as you say, I advise going to ANI and discussing the matter or open a SPI if you think the IP has been deceitful per WP:ILLEGIT.

Would you mind listing the IPs that they've used? I can determine if a rangeblock really is possible. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some of the accounts he has apparently used:

[39],[40],[41]

Various IPs in range 64.252.*.*[42][43][44][45][46][47][48]

Various IPs in range 12.76.*.*[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]

At least one registered username: [60]

The list above is not exhaustive. There appear to be many other IPs he has used.

Long history of complaints, yet no effective action ever taken. Here’s an example from a sockpuppet investigation where he tried to forge an admin signature.[61]

Here’s a recent RfC that was being drawn up [62] – in response he just switched IPs, so the RfC did not proceed. That seems to be what he usually does when people seek administrative action.

One of his current primary targets (extreme wikihounding) has been advised to go to ANI, but they feel it would be useless, as he would just switch IPs. I know little about ANI, but it seems to me that they’re probably right. Is there any effective action that could be taken in a case like this?Eurytemora (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The 12.76 and 64.252 IPs are technically possible to rangeblock and at that time might have proven to be effective. 75.2.209.226 looked to have been stable, so it's possible to have issued a long-term block. Based on the edits given, this editor does not target one page, so it would be really hard to limit the disruption if we're going the protection route.

64.134.100.231 is probably not them. The IP is located more than a 1000 miles from the other IPs. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know if this [63] is correct in its geolocation, but it gives the location of 64.134.100.231 as Jersey City, NJ (possibly at a hotel there), so within ready driving distance far from his apparent primary residence in CT.

The 69.37.198.182 appears to be the Stratford CT public library[64]. He seems to have stopped using 75.2.209.226, at least for now, so I’m not sure if blocking that would do any good.

I agree that protecting one page would not solve the problem. Quite a bit of his recent energy has been directed at the Stephen Ambrose page, but if that were protected, he would just go on to cause trouble elsewhere. Any further ideas? Eurytemora (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit odd. According to the Geolocation tracker and WHOIS, the IP geolocates to or is from Texas. It's entirely possible that they were on vacation and decided to stay there. I wouldn't rule this out. But, right now I'm a out of ideas. Unless he/she comes and edits with more IPs, I can't really determine whether blocking 3 or so addresses would be effective. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunday, I wrote on the Stephen Ambrose discussion page that I would seek semi-protection. Even though it wasn’t granted, perhaps that will cause him to back off – looking at the edit histories, he sometimes goes away (or at least reduces activity) when other editors have sought administrative action.

When he pops up again with a new IP (which I’m sure he ultimately will), do you mind if I come back here to request further assistance?Eurytemora (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that wasn’t long. It appears that he has popped back up. Since the IPs can be tracked by geolocation, and we’ve recently been doing that, he appears to have registered a new username Techwriter2B [65]. He added a long very screed to the Stephen Ambrose discussion page (diff:[66]), recapitulating and “supporting” all the points made by the anonymous IP user. Techwriter2B claims he’s a student who was given an assignment by an instructor “the instructor has talked about Wikipedia and everything that's wrong with it. The Stephen Ambrose article was given as an example, so I thought I'd stop by and see what was up. Boy, was the instructor ever right! This article has bad writing, bias, and one of the editors undoes everyone else's edits. And the talk page is something else!” He uses some of the same language and style as the anonymous IP user, and has editing skills not commensurate with a novice Wikipedia editor (use of bracketed links, italics, bullet points, etc). Makes the same accusations as the IP user (e.g. “talk page smears”, “rude behavior”, etc.).

Thoughts on the best course of action?Eurytemora (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend going to ANI for a third opinion. If what they're saying is valid, then, we could be dealing with multiple users here. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted at AN/I this morning, but no admins have yet replied [67]. The editor in question is now back to using an anonymous IP [68], apparently located at a hotel in Jersy City NJ, and is again heavily and disruptively editing the Stephen Ambrose article. It seems that semi-protection is really needed for both the article and its talk page.Eurytemora (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only been a day. Sometimes it might take time. How about waiting until the thread archives? Also, how about notifying other editors who might have interacted with this user before in the meantime? Elockid ^(Talk) 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could notify other editors (I've already notified a couple). Given the new disruptive edits, should I post another request for semi-protection (since the first request was declined on grounds of insufficient recent disruptive editing).Eurytemora (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. If they keep changing IPs withing the next few days, then yes. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question. Does notifying other editors who have dealt with this disruptive editor run afoul of WP strictures against canvassing? Eurytemora (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends how you word it. If you just use the ANI template, {{subst:ANI-notice|Seeking admin assistance for disruptive editor}}, you should be fine. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Section on the Swamilive thread on AN

Due to continous sockpuppetry and the fact that the section is seeing more heat than anything else, and also due to the fact that Swamilive is blocked and banned, I have BOLDly collapsed and closed the whole section. If you feel I have acted too boldly and wish it reopened, feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that you're being too bold at all. Thank you for collapsing it. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

DC has uncollapsed it for a second time, claiming I was "warned" about not collapsing threads (actually was he that was, but whatever), so I am not going to fight it. DC has a habit of drilling threads straight into the ground and beat the hell out of a dead horse. If you ignore him, he will eventually go away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep that in mind. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out with User:Spokebasic

G'day Elockid,

I just see you're reverting all edits by User:Spokebasic a.k.a. User:Nangparbat. Thanks for that. It's not that easy for relative newcomer like me to find my way around with templates and rules, so I do a lot of copy / paste, but my nose pointed me in the right direction. Thank you very much for finishing this off. Highly appreciated. Qwrk (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Winningman7634

CH results came in as open proxies. There is also another case that was opened under one of the puppets over the same issue : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwas45A. -- wiooiw (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete key

Obviously it's a targeted article. When the previous protection expired you protected it after just 34 minutes. I think it's time for an edit notice on that article. mechamind90 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Never did edit notices on articles, so I really don't know what to say about an edit notice. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the link is either Template:Editnotices/Page/Delete key or Delete key/Editnotice. If it's the first one, it can only be edited by administrators. mechamind90 03:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot, sorry about the revert, today is really a sock filled night. Anyways, it's the first one, but I don't really know what to put on it. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Village Pomp

Please check the complaint about your misconduct on the village pump. 79.182.10.212 (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You Are Mentioned on ANI

Please see here for the thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Talk:Julian calendar

Thank you for semi-protecting this page. However, with all due respect, why do you think that a semi-protection of one week will have any more effect on this person than the recent semi-protection of two weeks did?

I have long experience of this guy, both in 2008 and 2010, and I know from that experience that there really is only one effective way to stop him: permanent semi-protection. It finally brought him to a halt in 2008, and the current rounds only started up again when the semi protects were lifted with the reasons for them forgotten. His focus has shifted somewhat since 2008, but his basic obsessions with promoting inaccurate, obsolete and cranky ideas of calendrical history have not.

The articles he has been attacking since February have now mostly been permanently semi-protected, and so has the Archive for this article. I understand that talk pages do not have the same status, and that permanent semi-protection stops other IP editors from contributing, but in reality these are not very popular articles with very few if any IPs other than this crank, and even fewer who have made useful contributions. --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I protected it to give you guys a bit of break. :) I'm a bit reluctant to extend the protection since it's a talk page. I agree with you that there has been significant disruption in the talk pages and is probably good grounds for a longer term protection. But hopefully with the recent long-term blocks (they're spanning months now), he/she will slow down a little. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nangparbat

looks like he is back 86.143.159.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ecko1o1 narrow minded edits to Asian American

This refers to some old edits that I just noticed. [69]

I just noticed this horrible (in my mind racist) edit from February. I would like to thank you for your attempts to revert them. Sadly, the edits had got put back in and attention to them was lost. Now that I have noticed this, I removed the offending comment and replaced it with a line from the Terminology section. Anyways, since it appears you opposed Ecko1o1's edit also, I am asking if you can keep an eye out for me to make sure the offending comment is not reinstated (I am currently busy dealing with GRE and don't have much time for Wikipedia)

Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'll keep an eye out, it's on my watchlist. By the way, I still oppose Ecko's edit. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I don't know if my opinion will help since it's not an area where I'm fully active, but if you want I can still comment. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

CU for Yattum

The reason I requested the CU was mainly because I believe Yattum has already created several other accounts which he will no doubt begin using and it would be best to block them so as to ensure minimum collateral. Regardless, I don't have any complaints, I was just detailing my rationale. Vedant (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bit soon for a CU check. It was a couple of days ago. Probably in a week, then I'd probably endorse the next request. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And another

Hi Elockid, in case you haven't noticed yet, see here for another one. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked and tagged. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be more. I notice that user MER-C has put this on the global black list (or something). Does that mean that some alarm is generated whenever this link is added somewhere? If not, what is the result of this poke? DVdm (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's to signal the bot to revert that link addition like maybe XLinkBot. This is where the Global block list is. But I can't edit it though. The localized version I can edit, but I don't have a full understanding of Regex, so I'm reluctant to edit it. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:COIBot/Poke is a tool with which any admin (and certain other users) can search some fairly comprehensive databases of link additions to all Wikimedia projects. This is what I received:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/farscinema.com
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/nowrunning.ir

And, yes, I have requested global blacklisting of these domains.

(FYI, the pages that feed XLinkBot are User:XLinkBot/RevertList, User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, User:COIBot/RevertList.css and User:MER-C/RevertList.css). MER-C 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the info. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi MER-C, I was just about to ask on your talk page, but you beat me to it. Thanks for the clarification and the links. Meanwhile I had also found my way to this report. Interesting. DVdm (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That link was really helpful. Found a couple of missed socks because of it. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm done for today. The most recent spammer also spammed the Italian Wikipedia so when blocking be sure to check other projects. The appropriate tool is [70] (example usage). Blacklisting will take on average 2 to 3 days. MER-C 14:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Still at it: Hosseinirani (talk · contribs) Favonian (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

... and Netwooo79 (talk · contribs)}. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Fastily took care of that one. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The domains are now blacklisted. MER-C 02:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Midway

Thanks for your quick action on this. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I quit.

That is the last straw for me. If Jimbo isn't willing to get something done against this idiot the way he said he would, I'm out of here. That little jackass has just done me in. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've just blocked the range for a year starting today. So help me, I cannot take this anymore. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just that this has been going on for more than four years. Here's hoping I've plugged the latest hole in the dyke. Thanks.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bless you. I thought for sure we'd seen the last of him, but he's so damned hell-bent on screwing around with Teletubbies and such that he'll use any computer he can get his mitts on. I've been editing this site for years and I have never seen anything like this doofus. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. If some of his earlier posts are any indication, he's now close to 16 years old. As I once told another user, all I thought about at 16 were cars and girls. Bambifan thinks of Teletubbies!  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ' Ahem... just out of concern, what if your assumption is wrong and he is now between the age of 12 and 14? Teletubbies? Isn't that really for babies or some of them Catholic fanatics who had labelled it as evil and gay? =P Another thing, please don't quit... we need you~!!! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Could you perform revision deletion for this DIFF? TIA ----moreno oso (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The thread was removed per WP:DENY and the IP blocked for block evasion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind

A week ago you asked me about a certain IP address in relation to a banned user. I've partially changed my mind on this. You can read my response on my talk, backed up by diffs [71]. The caching proxy IP range being used by banned User:Instantnood was banned again this morning and the IP you asked me about decided to take on the issues the banned IP was working on. I still do not think they are the same, but there is blatantly obvious collusion or sharing. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yeah, seems like some meatpuppetry is going on or outside collaboration. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

95.145.99.96

I notice you just blocked 95.145.99.96. FYI, this is a sockpuppet of Mofb (talk · contribs), who I blocked a couple of years ago for block evasion. Would it be possible for you to semi-protect the article Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to dissuade the IP from returning? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very prompt response! -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. If protection needs extending please let me know. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it may well be required. The article has only just come off a 6 month semi-protection. If you look at the logs you'll see that it's been repeatedly protected because of the same recurrent problem of IP sockpuppetry. However, let's see how it goes this time. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Polylepsis

Special:Contributions/Once agaiiiiiiiiiin, already blocked on wp-FR. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary article move

An editor is doing some self-reverts and other screwball edits to Mujeres Asesinas (Mexico)‎. He added the Mexico part which is not needed as it is the only program with that name and airs in other countries. I tried to move it back but the system says an admin is needed. I have to go but could you move this for me? You're the first admin I saw and I really don't know what this other editor is trying to do. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind giving some more background info? Or perhaps talk to The Anome (talk · contribs) about it? Elockid ^(Talk) 00:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Hello Elockid. Thanks for the quick response to my request and for the protection for my talk page. The roaming IP has been a busy bee. Your protection will allow me to get back to normal editing (I hope) and is much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help out. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for the admin that hates vandalism and sockpuppetery!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For hating sockpuppetery and vandalism as much as I do.

That was also not enough for me, here's more!

Hello Elockid, I-20 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I-20 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Cheers, —I-20the highway 01:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much I-20. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What should I do about the Crescent Town article?

I ask this question because you rejected my petition for page semi-protection. The vandalism is persistent but not frequent. Is there any other strategy? A.Roz (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note one that I know, sorry. You may also wish to ask for a second opinion on the request you made at RfPP. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done

Good work dealing with the socks of UGAdawgs2010, and I see you have also put in some range blocks which was sensible. Keep up the good work. CT Cooper · talk 08:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Elockid ^(Talk) 09:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mango

Please refer to 2 links that have been provided in the Mango page (Oxford and American Dictionary). Both links say that the term Mango was adopted into English from Tamil: Maankaay and not from Malayalam: Manka.

I believe Arjun04 is trying to distort the fact. I call upon you to check the 2 links (or you can check how many ever links that are available to prove my point), correct the same in the article and then proceed to lock the article from further vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by அருநாடன்2 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to make the change yourself. Although the article is locked, it doesn't prevent autoconfirmed users like yourself from editing it. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have made the change to the etymology and have quoted the source correctly as found in American Dictionary. I hope better common sense would prevail upon the user Arjun24 in not vandalizing the content once again and distorting the fact.

Some offensive edit summaries

I just gave a short block to an IP and used RevDelete on an offensive edit summary on his talk page; the recent changes patroller who tagged him asked me to do the same on your talk page where there have been a number of similar ones over the last few days. I will do that if you like, but I thought I would ask you first - let me know. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion for anon IP you just blocked

Could you look at User talk:Ari89 and perform revision deletion? TIA ----moreno oso (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

One moment, I'm asking for a second opinion on this. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay the F you comments were considered ordinary, so I guess I've been told that shouldn't be revdeleted. I revdeleted the Allah comment made by that user though. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Polylepsis/Kiriniki

You're welcome: I quickly locked the sleeping sock-puppets on wp-FR too. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've been accused of Meatpuppetry, and your de-sysopping has been requested on ANI!

...and since the reporting IP can't read directions, it's up to me to inform you of the thread. Looks like a load of...stuff (hence the sarcasm) but you might want to look into it. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Elockid abetting meatpuppets? Have fun! N419BH 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Their threads have been closed due to WP:DENY several times, so I should probably adhere to that. Since this is their eighth attempt after seven or so unsuccessful attempts of getting what they want and seven or so attempts of boomeranging themselves, I think I'll leave it as is for now. If there's any serious issue(s), I'll comment. Thanks for the notification though. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty sure it was gonna be something along those lines, but as I am not familiar with the user I thought I should inform the experts. Probably just adhere to WP:DENY and let the bot archive it. Maybe they'll find WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED but I kinda doubt it. N419BH 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Racist message left by Ecko1o1

Ecko1o1 left this racist message on my talk page [72]. Can some disciplinary action be taken against this user. He also tried to reintroduce his edit on Asian American, but an IP editor reverted it. Correction, I just noticed it was you who reverted it, somehow I missed your name when looking at the reversion history Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That kind of comment is completely unnecessary and racist, not to mention wrong in so many levels. Unfortunately since I've been involved, I can't really do anything. I think ANI would be the best venue for now. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

[73] another racist post... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

He has violated the 3RR and I have reported him, and I am about to get off Wikipedia so I don't risk one either (I'm at two reverts), can you help monitor the page from his POV edits, thanks. (also he thinks for whatever reason that you have made a compromise with him, but I don't see any edits proving so) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Um I still have a problem with his version and am not in agreement with him/her. He/she's still missing other groups like Thai and Vietnamese people who in "popular consciousness" are considered Asian as well. East Asians are in no way the only people considered to be Asians. Not only that, but Filipinos are not East Asian. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, not to mention that it is not cited and the kind of stuff he wants to put is already discussed in the terminology section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly (talk • contribs) 2:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I really believe that the edit he/she keeps making is personal opinion. I haven't seen any source or have met anyone personally that limits Asian Americans solely to East Asians. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mickey Darwin

Is it possible for the page to be unprotected so that I can request a sleeper check and a range block? (I'm a lurker BTW). Thanks. Baby Peter Zaire (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined. Sorry, too many issues going on to unprotect. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Summer Youth Olympics

Hiya. I was sucked into [this edit]. Now I notice you'd blocked the user. What should be done now? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You can keep the edit if you want, I really don't mind. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave things stand. Thanks for replying - sorry to have got in the way of your good work. Trafford09 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote X

With the admin corps collectively oblivious to IP's of this guy posting the same topic over and over at ANI, I'll just report them all to you from here on. So here's one from this morning: [74]. Block, ignore, do whatever you want.--Atlan (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

For fixin' my userpage. I'm up to 8 vandal incidents :) Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection on Asian American?

When dealing with Nangparbat, the general plan was semi-protecting the vandalized/POV-smeared articles. I was thinking, it might be a good idea to do the same in response to ecko1o1. What's your opinion on the matter? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection might work but it's probably gonna get decline if we request it at RfPP since the user has been blocked. If they use the same range though, I can propose a rangeblock also. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're Welcome. I got hit with that phony SPI report too. I had a good laugh as well. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's something wrong

... with your signature. ;) Sincerely, Blurpeace 07:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It seems though that the sig accidentally got damage when moving requests around. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:MakmoudHassan

Hello, I suspect that User talk:MakmoudHassan is the sock of User:ProfessorJane, the edits are really similar, can you run a checkuser please? Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a CU so I can't fully confirm whether or no MakmoudHassan is ProfessorJane. I did blocked MakmoudHassan indefinitely a sockpuppet though. It looks like a duck. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

lightbulb

a-haaaaaaa! I knew I'd seen that stuff before... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Protect

Can you protect these two articles, Big Bang (band) and Tatsuya Fujiwara. As you can see in the articles history once InkHeart or EunSoo or whoever they are start editing those articles they never stop and repeatedly come back with a bunch of socks. 夢追人^YumeChaser 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Both pages protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I'm sorry you got dragged into this. 夢追人^YumeChaser 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You didn't drag me into this at all. I've blocked some of this user's IPs before. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare‎

Could you semi-protect his talk page. 4chan's playtime needs to come to an end on that page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The filter seems to be taking care of his page now. But I'm watching carefully. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie....just wanted to make sure. Thanks for your help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Government in exile

Need your help with something. If a page's topic is disputed, but there is no disagreement among editors (every editor agrees that the topic disputed), are there is no active discussion on the talk pages, is it proper to use the NPOV dispute tag? Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the dispute. If the dispute is currently about the neutrality of the article and the article issues have not been resolved, then I would say that adding an NPOV tag would be proper. By your statement, there appears to be a consensus that there is a clear disagreement with the content, so adding an appropriate tag that describes the issue would be proper. The tag then may serve as a notice to the readers of the article who may not be editors themselves that there is a problem with the article or for other editors to take note and fix the problem themselves. Although there is currently no discussion, it doesn't mean that the issue(s) is/are gone. If this has been a past issue and the same issue has not been resolved, then the tag in my opinion should stay. I hope that helps. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for long blocks

Those IPs are, at best, highly dynamic. A week-long block is going to end up with collateral. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about 94.195.11.65 correct? I normally do 24/31 hours, but it's been abused before with no other edits. Anyways, I've reduced it. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye, 'tis the one. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Flags

I've set the confirmed, rollback, and reviewer flags for your sockpuppet. I'm pretty sure you can just do it yourself, unless, of course, you're somewhere you shouldn't be logging into an admin account. Courcelles 02:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'm not anywhere else where I shouldn't be logging in at the moment. But in a couple hours, I'll be out of town, just want everything to be set. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Government in exile

If you have some time, I was wondering if you could take a look and join the discussion on the GIE page. Thanks! T-1000 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mrpontiac1

Hey dude. MrPontaic1 is likely back again hopping on the same IP range after two separate range blocks. Also I've come across two very suspicious accounts that just popped up in the last few days. Might it be a good time for another Check User? Thanks Nirvana888 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind listing the accounts? If there's a couple CU might be helpful. What was the IP range again? Elockid ^(Talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for sockpuppetry being used by same person. Possibly time to unblock the main id.

Hi, You may recall putting a block on 207.237.243.185 (talk · contribs · count) because it was being used by blocked User:SingingZombie. SZ is back using the same IP. Although there has been a bit of a squabble over whether a character in Verdi's Otello should be spelt Jago or Iago - both spellings exist in reliable sources - I think that his recent edits have been constructive. There wasn't much response when I mentioned SZ's return at WT:WPO#User:SingingZombie back from the dead though there was a suggestion to talk to you as the editor who blocked the IP. There are some warning messages for this month on the IP's talk page but my investigation of the ones with the links to supposedly problematic edits is that there has been some over-enthusiastic use of Huggle or a similar tool by the users who issued the warnings rather than any vandalism on SZ/the IP's part. My inclination therefore is that we should seek to regularise the situation by unblocking SZ rather than block the IP. What do you think?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reblocked for 3 months. For future reference, you may want to file and SPI for quicker results just in case I'm not here or am busy. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I actually wan't demanding a block but consideration of the options. Basically we know it's the same user and the question is whether to block or to deicde whether the last two months of contributions are such that we cna consider unblocking the named account perhaps with conditions, discuss at ANI etc. There's more discussion on what's going on [[[WT:WPO#User:SingingZombie back from the dead|here]] where another user has some concerns but where I also point out that the warnings on the IP's talk page are pretty hair-brained.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think ANI would be a good place to discuss the unblocking of SingingZombie. But it would be better for them to ask for an unblock from their talk page (SingingZombie's) rather than the IP's. I don't have any problems with unblocking the IP though. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the repoy and the post at the IP page. Let's see whether SZ takes that route. It's a pity that only one other user ahs commented at the thread at WPO as it would be easier to determine a consensus with wider participation.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular fornt Of India

hi Elockid,

it had been noticed that the page had been protected with incorrect references which had been removed by me but were reverted back,the links provided for the last undo was false and wasnt valid which insisted me to delete the invalid lines.Kindly go through the invalid references and remove them.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioras (talk • contribs) 1:36, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed in the talk page of the article before any further action can be taken. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular Front of India.

Feel free to change to indefinite protection if you think it best. I figured most coordinated/sockpuppet attacks only last around 5 days or so, but if you have a feeling this could go on longer than that, by all means change the time. Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 01:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually that was a mistake. I intended to put it for a week, same as yours. Thought I did, but realized I didn't. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, glad to hear convention hasn't changed that much since I left, heh. Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 02:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:87.8.103.233

Duly noted and will do as requested. Green Giant (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bangladesh FAR nom

I have nominated Bangladesh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protects

Is there any way I could have you consider full page protects for Malinvestment‎‎ and Monetary inflation for 3 weeks or so? They're pretty low traffic articles, so I if there's any need for {{editprotected}}, it should be very rare. Those articles are just going to keep drawing him apparently. BigK HeX (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

...actually, it might be a good place to test-drive Lvl 2 Pending Changes against sockpuppetry. BigK HeX (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm watchlisting the articles now. If he get's through the semi repeatedly with little or no edits from others, then I can upgrade the protection to full. Or would you rather have both PC2 and semi, PC2 and full, or just PC2? Elockid ^(Talk) 13:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

PC2 and semi would be awesome for those two pages. He also seems to be hitting the Murray Rothbard page too, but that one gets too much traffic to protect, IMO, so I'll just have to keep an eye on it. BigK HeX (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. PC2 protected on Malinvestment and Monetary inflation. Also watchlisted Murray Rothbard and keeping and eye out. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You are a godsend. This should keep him firmly at bay and deflate his motivation for spamming out these sockpuppets. Thanks a ton! BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing on a completely different topic. Regarding the top thread on your talk page here, uhh Wow ... that is quite a disturbing comment. Looks like a perfect candidate for "refactoring"! BigK HeX (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Long-term abuser blocked and revdeleted. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that filth. Much appreciated! BigK HeX (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Grenada main page locked

Hi, I was in the process of uploading a picture onto the Grenada main page, and was having some difficulty reducing the thumbnail image size. If you go to the page now, my image is 800x600 ... not thumbnail size at all. Before I could fix this, you locked the Grenada page and have made it inaccessible. Now the image takes up an entire portion of the page because it has not been reduced to thumbnail size. Please either correct the thumbnail size or open it for re-editing so that I may correct it. Thank you.

14:55, 24 August 2010 Elockid (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Grenada [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Excessive vandalism) (hist)

Vkap (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it's been resolved as you were able to edit the page. If you have any other problems, please feel free to contact me. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Promotional tone and External links on Pune

Dear Elockid,

Sorry for PUNE (Requesting speedy deletion)

IN FACT on page Pune # Culture - someone had put External link as:

Pune's disposable income has been growing with an increasing working population inviting many expensive restaurants and pubs like Barbeque Nation, Mainland China, Hard Rock cafe etc. Further, there are a bunch of standalone restaurants and local chains like Shiv Sagar. A list of all the restaurants in Pune along with the menu can be found on Foodiebay - a menu pages website.

Is it vandalism ?

if yes then, what one should do to it. Plz let me know. Please enlighten.

--Shlok 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't generally considered vandalism. More closely as spam. Seems like a person trying to promote their company through an ad. Information like this is usually removed with a proper edit summary. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for permission

I was wondering if you would consider either granting or possibly recommending me to someone for the grant of WP:ROLLBACK permissions. Being able to easily revert KiK socks after the SockPuppet Investigations would make save me a large amount of time and headache in protecting the project from this trespasser. He seems to have a fixation on me, which may be because I'm part of the small group of editors who most often ends up rooting out his troublemaking. If he knows I can revert all of the socks we find in Checkuser with the click of a button, it may even discourage him a bit further. Of course, having managed an online community of my own, I'm aware of the responsibilities and I pledge to use any tool with the utmost of caution. Thanks for any consideration on the matter. BigK HeX (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Granting BKH'S request for further admin rights would be totally inappropriate. First, BKH has initiated and forced through false and incorrect bans on wrongly identified sockpuppets on multiple occasions. See for example here. In particular, see the sad case of callous and totally inappropriate action here - which still to this day has not been corrected. This poor woman has been wrongly punished for no reason other than BKH's overzealous actions. This insane zealotry is his trademark. His track record of disputes with others is nothing short of appalling. See the talk pages at Austrian School, ABCT, and Libertarianism. The disputes he has blundered into have nothing to do with KiK. He is considered a POV-pushing socialist paper-pushing confetti zealot by many editors who know him better than I. If he does get these admin rights there really is no hope for WP. It will have become utterly corrupted by admins more concerned to use their corrupt power rather than allowing this project the openness it needs to flourish. On your talk page you admit you make mistakes. Don't let this be yet another one. - 122.110.18.200 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note how nervous User:Karmaisking must be about the prospect, if he feels the need to come plead with you! I hope this is taken as evidence of the potential usefulness of the Rollback rights in discouraging a banned editor from wasting his time and continually disrupting the community. BigK HeX (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done and IP blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Here's another page where you can request for permissions: WP:PERM. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all that you're doing. I'm confident this will help keep the project from unnecessary and HUGELY time-wasting disruptions. I also appreciate the link. I'll have a look-see. Thanks a ton, Elockid! BigK HeX (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem and good luck! Elockid ^(Talk) 13:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Franperu21?

Thank you for taking care of this yesterday, but I saw the exact same edits appear today from a new account. KimChee (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• User:Franperu21: Chile, Peru
• User:Concha211: Chile, Peru

Thanks. Blocked and tagged. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fenian raids

Thank you for offering some form of protection for this article; apart from the minor annoyance factor; it seems like this editor is strongly supportive of the notion of banning unregistered editing; they're certainly doing a wonderful job of promoting the concept judging by their editing practices. Beginning about three weeks ago; this same editor began a parallel editing practice in the Battle of Prosperous article; where they add statistics to the article and refuse to provide a reference for the new stats or communicate with other editors regarding their reasoning, either through an edit summary or on the article talk page. I advised them early in; on their talk page, with no results and as was occurring in the Fenian raids situation; they switch IP's on almost every edit, so communication is little difficult. I'll put a note on the article talk page; but I strongly suspect it will be the same "response" as before; simply a continuation of disruption and ignoring other editors. Thanks again, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you feel the need to ask semi-protection on Battle of Prosperous, feel free to message me. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As predicted; this same editor is continuing to disrupt the Battle of Prosperous article even after attempting to communicate with them on the article's talk page. Could you possibly semi-protect this one as well? Thank you for your time. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Article semi-protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent range block for disruption on Race related articles

I wonder if you'd reconsider applying a semi-protection for a few weeks over range blocks for (Race (classification of humans) and Talk:Race (classification of humans)) This person is cruising various IPs, usually university related I think. I believe he's recently banned User:Mikemikev (IP edits to user talkpage) whose interests have never ventured much into non-race related articles and can't find it in himself to move on yet. So today we have this, and following earlier blocks there were this, this and these. My understanding of semi's and range blocks isn't that up-to-date, but I'm wondering if the semi's would be more effective and minimize the lock-outs to others trying to edit wikipedia from those IPs. He may well branch to other Race related articles that are under the arbitration umbrella Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision so this may not be the end of it either, we'll have to see. Anyway, thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reconsidered Race (classification of humans). I usually don't like protecting talk pages unless there's significant disruption. I'll keep an eye out. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try reverting the trolling on talk pages--the troublemaker's typically just posting WP:SOAP or WP:PA anyway. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent lock

Hello, recently you put a lock on the "aspartame controversy" article. I assume this is in place because of edit warring over the POV tag. I am asking that the tag please be placed back on the article with the lock as there are numerous editors who believe this article does not have a neutral point of view. As can be seen on the talk page we have given specific reasons for this. Instead of responding to the concerns a handful of editors ignore them and remove the tag stating there are no valid concerns to display it hence calling our concerns invalid. The article was locked a few weeks ago by another administrator due to edit warring over the tag but it was left on during the lock. A visit to the talk page will show that there are many different editors that believe this page to be bias and would like the article to state this until the dispute is resolved. Thank you for you time. Jmpunit (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a dispute. I can't take sides, sorry. There has to be a clear consensus (there doesn't appear to be) for anyone to put that tag back during a fully protected page. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is if you look at the history of the article the page had the tag up on and off for almost a week. When you placed the lock on the page the tag had been removed for less than thirty minutes. It was Kingoomieiii that had removed it (he was not actively part of the discussion). I don't know if it was him that contacted you. Perhaps there is something we can do. No? Jmpunit (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a request on WP:RFPP and I handled the request there. Per protection policy, the last version or the Wrong version is usually protected. This is why it is protected at the current version. The only thing that can be done now is discuss as this seems to be a recurring problem. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

List of most populous metropolitan areas in India

Something's amiss on this page with some city having dropped off the top 40 I think. I noticed while reverting some POV push, since you were the major contributor, could you check what fell off (I can't seem to figure it out)? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nashik is listed twice in the top 40. It's listed as #17 and #24. Whatever was the first entry was the one kept I guess. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hah, that explains it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)