This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 18 |
Is there some, um, conclusion to be drawn from the fact that that your edit count at WP:3O has been stuck at 666 since May 25? Do we need to call in an exorcist? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Jackjit's back! The banned user Jackjit is again vandalizing Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld article again (and others) using his revolving 118 IP. He is again making the same edits he tried to make over a month ago when he was blocked. Please, can we put a stop to this quicker than last time? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit) -- RedEyedCajun ( talk) 11:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it sounds far fetched but my gut feeling (Baseball Bugs and I, we seemed to have that ability to sniff out socks for some strange reason) is telling me that he is indeed using that IP to return here, taking very great care to avoid his old topic. I acknowledge that there has been a boatload of similar IP behaviours but this guy is really cunning, there's subtlety in his edit which I can't pinpoint but the similar way of nick-picking at words and with concise edit summaries both produces. Without provocations, he won't react and I merely just pointed out to him about something in his word of choice and he blew his top, something not missed by me when I went through his edit and noted in his BAN endorsement. The lapse between now and 2008 might not produce anything concrete but the similar pattern of outburst is something worth watching out for. Also, it took Σ to provide that critical link which I lacked until yesterday that I was finally able to connected the dots. That said, what is your advice/thought on this and if so, what other course of action should I undertake? Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you were the blocking admin for Cyperuspapyrus, can you have a look at this edit, the bit about "I personally don't understand why there's always a proposal for deletion in pages concerning kickboxing organizations" seems fishy given his past contributions. Mt king (edits) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, would like to ask for advice. If a user with limited history of contributions participates in discussion like a pro, is there any way to check for sock-puppetry? -- Ashot ( talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
for endless outstanding work as an SPI clerk | |
ever since I can remember reporting or reading about sockpuppets, you've been calmly and efficiently dealing with them. I therefore take great pleasure in awarding you the sockpuppet-confuzzling barnstar. Keep up the great work! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
I have no idea if you do barnstar-type things, and I realise your userpage doesn't accommodate them, but I thought it should be said. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 02:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for wasting your time regarding the above investigation. There is something odd going on but clearly it is not socking. - Sitush ( talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You protected this page claiming "persistent sockpuppetry". There is no such thing. You should not give dishonest justifications when in fact you seem to be protecting it to give the upper hand to one side in a content dispute. 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what evidence you apparently believe there is of any sockpuppetry related to edits to this article, much less "persistent sockpuppetry". Please explain your protection on the talk page. Talk:Van Tuong Nguyen. Thanks, -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In this SPI, I have filed a new case, but the preceding one hasn't been archived. Just wondering if something was wrong. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
℥ nding· start 04:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI: I've also left a note about the most recent socks at User talk:Tnxman307, who is already familiar with the user and was the one to investigate the original report (now in the archive). --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
See WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how anything I added is a "soapbox" or advertising in anyway. The Maryland Renaissance Festival is a business. As a business, they set prices for their product. To say what the rate of a product is is only statistical information, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.103.46 ( talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason I added the IP was that Whois reported it a static IP. If there's a relation between this IP and the blocked users, blocking the IP may prevent further vandalism. I assume the vandal will be back within the next 24 hours as Spartanmastah3 or TheGreatness4. -- Denniss ( talk) 01:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong,
Will I be stepping on your toes if I block Jww047 for 29 days, to match the 1 month block on his two IP's? I'm familiar with the Jww047 situation, and have brought myself up to speed on the latest ANI and SPI. He's disruptive and is, it seems, immune to requests, advice, and warnings. He edit wars interchangeably with his account and his IP's, often to add BLP violations to an article. His IP's are both blocked for a month for behavior that he is now continuing with his account.
I note that you declined to block the account in the SPI, so I'll hold off until I hear from you in case I'm missing something that you see. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've added an additional sock here. Since the investigation was closed, I'm not sure if I was supposed to do that or open another case. Please advise. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 00:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wliiam·Shakespeare. The sock in question is NapoleoneBonaparte ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I misspelled Fatima when I meant user Fantimiya. I have left an apology for Fatima, reverted myself there, and corrected the name on the Sockpuppetry page. Edward321 ( talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You have misspelled it again. It is Fatimiya. This accusation of sock-puttery has no basis. However, as I have made a report, I believe Edward321 and Jeff3000 are indeed sock-puppets -- Fatimiya ( talk) 09:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Edward321 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeff3000. The notes for the 1st apply to the second -- Fatimiya ( talk) 09:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
He's shopping around for help to make his edits (and is succeeding), just as his LONG history shows he has done many times in his past when he can't get his way on an article. Please look at his unfair mischief here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Red_Eye_w.2F_Greg_Gutfeld
This is totally discouraging to me as I have done my very best to follow all wiki policy to improve this place called Wiki. If this shopping around for others by so-called banned/blocked user is allowed to stand, then the Wiki community can count me out as an editor and it really saddens me to say that because for the most part, I have really enjoyed being here and learning/helping to create a better Wiki for all. But I won't be lied about by the likes of a Jackjit and others he recruits (with notorious edit histories) to do his bidding. Can't something real be done to block this guy or is Wiki a hopeless case when it comes to fairness? -- RedEyedCajun ( talk) 10:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
These are in fact only questions not complaints, so don't worry. This Sockpuppet investigations (once I was incorrectly included in a list for someone elses sockpuppet IDs) was my first at reporting, so I have some simple questions for you, just to understand the process and it's meaning, since it was closed so much faster then I imagined.
Thanks for helping out a Newbe when I comes to this kind of stuff-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 02:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thankk for helping a Sockpuppet Newbe -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 06:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uwo222#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments for my detailed response. Please let me know if you need more. Kurdo777 ( talk) 06:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about this. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrendanFrye, you commented that I should relist when new things happen. How do I do that or where can I check the procedure to do that? Because another IP with a similar range made some similar reverts as its first contributions. At least this one did something other than reverting, but it does appear to be the same user. Jfgslo ( talk) 00:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you have a look at Hetoum's recent case? Thanks in advance.-- Ehud ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been around here long enough now to see the countless hours put into chasing sockpuppets and their dynamic IP addresses. As you all know, Internet Service Providers have strict "Terms of Use/Service" agreements with their customers. In these TOS agreements, it clearly states that if the customer uses the ISP services to damage or destroy websites, or for other harassing type of behavior on the Internet, then that service will be terminated. So, after years of chasing some of these "banned users" here on Wikipedia, I think a good case could be presented to an Internet Service Provider that one of their customers is doing great damage harassing the Wikipedia project and wasting the resources of Wikipedia. All you would have to show is a history of damage/harassment done by the sockpuppet/dynamic IP and the exact times the IP made those edits identified as vandalism, then the ISP could trace it back to a particular customer and terminate their service. Obviously this would only be used in extreme cases which have gone on for many months or years. I'm certain someone at Wiki must have thought of this before, so what is the problem with implementing this as policy on Wiki? -- RedEyedCajun ( talk) 07:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong - just requesting a bit of input on User:AmieRoseLong. I've put their unblock on-hold. I feel inclined to decline this request but considering that there was slim (if convincing) evidence of sockery I'd like to run their unblock request this by your eyes before declining (in case it sheds more light on the case for you in either way)-- Cailil talk 15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. I'm writing to follow-up on your comment made here [1] about Keanubreeze and Theonlinewriting1. You mentioned that they do not have article overlap. But an edit made by each editor on an additional topic (a disease) on two different articles seem to further suggestion a strong overlap in editing patterns: [2] [3]. These would not turn up on the automated report, but please do take a look at the diffs. Wouldn't that double overlap suggest WP:DUCK? ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for attending to the case so quickly. Your closing opinion on the matter is much appreciated. Will do. Viriditas ( talk) 03:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Sydney bluegum was topic banned as a SPA that was here just for advocating, the small number of other pages both he and ?oygul have edited means there will not be many hits on pages they both edit, as both editors only really edit one page. They are in the same city, but if they have dynamic IPs, that would be what you would expect to see. I am not trying to start a which hunt here, but in this case what is the best thing to do? Just wait and see if ?oyogul builds more of an editing pattern? At what point would there be grounds for further action? Colincbn ( talk) 02:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This SPI is about to archive, but there's a new report there. Is there a tag I need to change/remove? - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You may not have noticed the autoblock un-block request on The.aviation.expert, can you reconsider the CU on this account as The.aviation.expert has admitted he is a returning user, and think a check is in order to see if he is avoiding community sanctions. Mt king (edits) 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with how SPIs work, but I have User talk:Zappyzac on my wathchlist so when they said [4] I figured I should pass it on to somebody. I looked up the SPI at [5] to figure out what was going on and saw that you'd said "Neither account has edited in the past month, so I don't think we need the full workup for a one-off like that. (Based on edits I'm not even really convinced they're the same.) Relist if this case becomes active, or start a new case if the other master/sock does more." So I think this means you'd want to know about Zappyzac's recent edit? Cloveapple ( talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Your decision to label the suspected socks as sockpuppets solely based on them all making the same undo was questionable at best, and ultimately not supported by the technical evidence. I've noted this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_w.2F_Sockpuppets; this is a courtesy note advising you of the same. – xeno talk 04:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Please make a followup comment on my talk page [6] regarding your suspicions. Are those edits mine or not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luísarfs ( talk • contribs) 08:03, August 7, 2011
Thanks for the quick action with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokhaiz Kaunpal, this is really getting too much of my time, when it is so very WP:DUCK. I'm sure I'll get my personal attack again, but nevermind that. I'm pretty sure his "articles" will not survive PROD, but should anything be done with Iblees Ki Majlis-e-Shura? -- Muhandes ( talk) 14:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear administrator. Because you are aware of sockpuppeting tricks of users involved in this report [7], can you please look at suspicions and evidence? Dighapet ( talk) 14:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a follow-on to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lloydbaltazar/Archive.
You had previously blocked this IP for three days as part of the closure of this case. The master account, Lloydbaltazar, was blocked 48 hours for edit warring by Satori Son on August 2 per an ANI complaint. Now both Lloyd and this sock have vigorously returned to editing. One article involved is Our Lady of Perpetual Help (history) where both have edited. Since Lloyd's edits are often contentious and he could be heading toward a longer block, I don't see why he should edit disputed articles with both his account and an IP. My long spiel here is to propose a block of the IP of at least a month. I wanted to run it past another admin to check my reasoning, though. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 14:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. A.B.C.Hawkes ( talk · contribs) has just trolled on WP:AE. I have reverted these edits and informed Elen of the Roads, as she is aware of the wikistalking by A.K.Nole. This concerns this SPI report:
I already made this request of Elen of the Roads, but, if she has not already done so, could you please now the three sockpuppets (Echigo mole, Old Crobuzon and A.B.C.hawkes)?
Thanks in advance, Mathsci ( talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. I'm not sure if you recall, but about a week or so ago you blocked two accounts for sockpuppet abuse ( User:أبو الحارث بن قيس عيلان & User:Antime); c.f. [8]. Both were confirmed via Checkuser. You rather generously left the sockmaster account, one User:Prince jasim ali, unblocked with the explanation that it seemed as though the editor had perhaps switched to a new username. However, as I showed in the sock case, the editor never actually stopped using his old Antime account nor did he ever indicate that he had switched over to the new Prince jasim ali one. Instead, he created yet another sock account, which he used simultaneously as the main account, typically hopping back and forth between them within minutes of each other. In other words, he was pretending to be several people at once/abusing the accounts and over the same general range of articles. This is in breach of WP:ILLEGIT, which indicates that "editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people". Wikipedia:Clean start also indicates that "a clean start is when a user sets aside an old account in order to start fresh with a new account, where the old account is clearly discontinued and the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities", and that actual "clean start accounts should not return to the same topic areas or editing patterns if there is a strong desire to separate from the initial account." However, as can clearly be seen in the sock case, the user went right back to the exact same kinds of behaviors and activities as he used to under his Antime account, and on many of the same pages to boot. Worse, the user's one unblocked account has now again gone right back to edit-warring and removing reliable sources on several of the same articles that he was disrupting previously (e.g. [9]). Given all of the foregoing as well as the sock case, would you please reconsider your decision to not ban the sockmaster account? Regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 10:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've recreated the 2011 Avis Amur Antonov An-12 crash article, as the version that got deleted was the one I originally wrote under the title of Avis Anur Antonov An-12 crash last night (with a few typos fixed). I'll write a new version of the aircrash that happened on Monday, starting from scratch. Both of these accidents pass WP:AIRCRASH and deserve to have articles. Mjroots ( talk) 05:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you finally close the latest investigation? It seems it hasn't been archived yet. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hello - five plus years here, but this was my first ever SPI report. I check WP:AN/I over breakfast, always worrying my name will be mentioned for WP:COMPETENCE, inter alia. And it appears I dun good there. Thanks for that little !vote of confidence! - -- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an ongoing investigation against me and other users about having multiple SPAs. While most other users have been cleared of being sockpuppets, the clerk reviewing the case mentioned I and another user had at one point the same IP address. I have had literally dozens of IPs because they are dynamic and change periodically through no fault of my own. I tried to go back to my previous edits and show examples of how these IPs have been used or are currently being used by other Wikipedia editors all across the country both before and after they had been assigned to me. The clerk reviewing this information dismissed my points saying I had used one of the other editors computers, and I can assure you 100% that is not the case and this is the absolute only device I have ever used to edit on Wikipedia.
He has not been back to comment or close the case despite me having provided extra relevant info on my previous IP addresses which I openly claim not as sockpuppet master, but as an editor who only recently signed up for an account. I even tried to go back to the articles I had previously edited and jotted down all the ones I could find to share them with others. I admit I often use open WiFi networks, shared networks, as well as my own internet not out of malice, but to supplement my limited internet data plan. I believe there is a coincidence at play with the one IP address because of me having accessed the same dynamic IP address as other editors on several occasions (all different editors around the country and uninvolved with this case) and made my point in the SPA page which you gave the go ahead to look into. At this point I am not so concerned with the outcome of the investigation as much as all the new SPA investigations I am being dragged into by editors from the Marisol Deluna talk page while this investigation is still open. Could you review this case and the page in question please?? BbBlick ( talk) 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. You are an admin. I have seen around, and I am trying to to get some action on a sock investigation and nothing is happening except a bunch of bickering by interested parties on the page. No admins. There was a totally specious request about ME which received immediate attention (I was cleared in an hour.) It would really help with the page if my suspicions could get born out, or cleared. Can you help? Page: Marisol Deluna. Investigation here.
VQuakr ( talk) 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I don't quite know how the "s" disappeared. When you deleted and restored the page, the semiprotection because of persistent socking seems to have been dropped. Was that an accident? Mathsci ( talk) 08:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Kallieriastus ( talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you looked into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JeanColumbia Isn't there going to be any action against the person making this false accusation against a respected WP editor? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A second request to move the article "tree shaping" to "arborsculpture" has been opened. Since you have previously been involved in the subject, you may wish to participate in the discussion. AfD hero ( talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I notice that you closed the investigation of this case. I wonder if it would be possible to re-open it to see if ?oygul is a sock of user:Blackash? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urbanuntil 1 - this page doesn't seem to link back to the archive but rather presents just sort of a stub sock puppet report - JohnInDC ( talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Regard this SPI request, I sent you material linking the editor to the IP off-wiki as it revealed personal information. At the time the disruption appeared to have stopped but appears to be starting again. Is it relevant to reprise it? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey again, I need your help with Ranbirk ( talk · contribs) - the guy kept edit warring on Priyanka Chopra and personally attacking me while also harrassing me on my talk page. His versions were full of POV, unsourced edits, grammar errors. Now this was the last straw when he started using very abusive language in Hindi in his last edit summary against me (I would translate it to you but trust me it's better to avoid it). I've warned him before, I could not handle his poor edits, the guy hardly writes proper English and then accuses me of being biased for no fault of my own. He also has a sock puppet - Wallvelvet ( talk · contribs) through which he awarded himself banstars (and me too, which I removed as I knew he was trying to prevent me from opposing to his edits). I request your help as I'm fed up. Shahid • Talk2me 20:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I missed it. Mea culpa. Somehow, I thought it was a recent post. Insert trout-slap here. Thanks, JoeSperrazza ( talk) 02:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
So the sock case determined these two are meatpuppets--what's next, a block or a warning? Blueboy 96 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
At the Sockpuppet investigation [12] you stated. "Hmm... they only have the Tree shaping talk page in common, so I have a feeling they're offline friends or something. I'm closing with no action taken for now."
If editing the same page is proof of being offline friends, your feelings should also be applied to Duff and Slowart, Colincbn and Martin, Grisium and Slowart. These pairs of editors have extensively edited the same articles. Slowart, Duff and Grisium have edited Axel Erlandson, Grafting, Tree shaping and others. I don't think this is a good way to deicde if editors know each other. The point I'm making is relevant to the editors' behaviour and your feelings about that behaviour, not the topic. Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I request the you remove the block on Kris Jordan. The article, as it stands now, is completely illiterate and contains minimal factual information. The "sock-puppets" that supposedly have plagued the article contributed very little, if any, negative information--certainly, the person was not a vandal. But the article needs to be re-written irrespectively of that person's desire for changes.
Alex.deWitte ( talk) 05:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can I point you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos, please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I had zero connection to any of those anon addresses. BrendanFrye ( talk) 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
hes back again in 2 days, the evidence is even clearer now and i opened a case at SPI. Can we lock down both the pages for osome 3 months or so? Lihaas ( talk) 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
hi HelloAnnyong! You have previously edited the article Azerbaijani American, that's why I decided to ask you to look at this version of the page [13] I have done many edits to it, expanded it tremendously, added many fresh, new sources, including unique statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, and in general made this article more consistent with other similar articles about "hyphenated Americans", such as Russian American, Turkish American, Iranian American, Armenian American, etc. This version of the article, however, keeps being reverted by some users, including IP anons [14], who are otherwise never improving the article in any way, content with keeping it in a sorry state and just revert. The article as well as its talk page could benefit from your insight and knowledge. I have left extensive comments myself, and each time I edited, I left an overwhelming number of sources, going above and beyond of what's necessary. I don't want this simple article to become artificially polarized, and thus think your "two cents" would help improve it. -- Saygi1 ( talk) 00:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
May I question this? -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to comment here because you've requested that we let this go on the now closed SPI. First of all, I appreciate you trying to provide a justification for Cerejota's initial suspicion, but unfortunately, it is completely and totally unjustified. Yopienso is a woman who has been here for a long time without any problems whatsoever. She's known for never edit warring, for being polite, and for remaining calm in a dispute. Gise, on the other hand, is a guy who recently created an account and has a personality and POV that is completely at odds with Yopienso in every way. Yes, sometimes people agree and edit at the same time, but that never is a justification for starting an SPI. Cerejota initiated the SPI because he quite clearly and unambiguously misunderstood a comment by Yopienso. The irony, of course, is that the comment in question was a statement by Yopienso indirectly accusing Gise of being a sock. Why would someone who was socking accuse their sock of being a sock? Seriously, there is no justification for this SPI at all, and Cerejota made a mistake. It should be deleted to clear Yopienso's name. Viriditas ( talk) 03:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, she has been highly uncivil towards me and others, so I question characterization as an un-problematic user. -- Cerejota ( talk) 04:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have watched this with bemusement and have to agree 100% that Cerejota abused the SPI process by raising this in the first place (for reasons that aren't clear it seems he just doesn't like Yopienso), and your meatpuppet accusation - without any evidence other than a few coincidentally timed edits - is way out of line and you do owe Yopienso an apology. Cise & Yopienso may well just happen to live in the same timezone. Did you consider that? They don't show any similarity in personality. They don't share any common bias. They appear do not even appear to speak the same language (there's plenty of evidence that Gise, if he is not someone's sockpuppet, is not a native English speaker). The idea that Yopienso has this crazy obsessive friend call "Gise" and is pretending otherwise is laughably stupid - if you had bothered to do any investigation that is. Alex Harvey ( talk) 02:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
es look at my (ec) additional evidence. Its either meaty or two browsers. However, why is no action needed if there is a block? Can't an investigation close as confirmed or possible with a permanent block? -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
My request, Annyong, that I wanted to post on the SPI page, was for a checkuser. I see you have closed it and it will be archived. I am not OK with that. If you run a check (although I'm very low tech and don't really know what that means, but assume it might check our IP addresses or something) you will find absolutely no connection between Gise and me. I think it's only fair to me to allow this to be settled. Thank you. Yopienso ( talk) 04:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes when one is exposed for extended periods to some of the seamier sides of the project, there is a blunting of the ability to assume good faith or to be able to identify benign reasons for actions that might in some circumstances be questionable. It is important, as an SPI clerk, that you be able to step back and look at things with an impartial eye, and to act conservatively. The initial complaint essentially boiled down to "these people disagree with me" - which isn't even a reason for an SPI, and the file should probably have been closed right there without any further investigation. I encourage you to insist that the complainants provide you with sufficient evidence before you start hunting for more. In particular, wikistalk is not a particularly useful tool for sockpuppetry reviews, especially when comparing accounts that are both editing within the same topic area; they are likely to communicate with the same people, use the same talk pages and so on. Risker ( talk) 06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
As a previously interested editor, your input is invited over at older discussion and newer discussion (mostly by just me), about this embedded list. If I'm off base, I'd rather hear it from two editors rather than one. It's not really a dispute, so formal WP:3O isn't really on yet. -- Lexein ( talk) 00:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi! On 12 August you blocked, this user for abusing multiple accounts and also blocked several of his current sock puppets. He's now finished his block and has just this morning used another new anon IP:- 203.173.31.97 to alter his previous 'George SJ XXI' edits on both his talk page and the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington talk page, which is an article he was edit warring on and received a block four days prior to yours for that issue, from EyeSerene. As he doesn't seem to have learned his lesson would it be possible to block this new anon IP and issue a further and longer block to his main username for persistent abuse of multiple accounts? Also please note that he is currently engaged in some sort of complex editing of his talkpage in and out of archive mode, with deletions of warnings from admins, and making it appear he has no previous talk page contents, see here. Richard Harvey ( talk) 11:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, HelloAnnyong. I've posted a response at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRATTOOO. There actually are multiple IPs that can be checked against the latest sock investigation. Can you reevaluate based on that? Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 04:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
All the socks of Bokan995 ( talk · contribs) were created after he was blocked for edit warring, I'm convinced they were created to avoid another block, hard to have good faith when that happens. Dougweller ( talk) 09:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows is a sockpupet for User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day and opened a case earlier today which was immediately closed. It turns out that a previous investiation was opened earlier this month and closed by you.
You said "I'm not 100% convinced of it, and OnlyGodTheFatherKnows has gone stale. Closing for now".
This SPA User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows is now participating in an AfD discussion which is discussing the same article as User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day and her/his many puppets have attempted to own over the years. Could you kindly please take a look again? Thanks. -- Fasttimes68 ( talk) 18:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm neither complaining about nor appealing your decision regarding sock puppetry by AceD. Since you concluded "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means.", I would like to respond. I've been an active editor for a couple of years now, and only recently have had to deal with this situation.
I do clearly understand that any of my edits may be boldly and ruthlessly edited by other editors.
From my standpoint, it's extremely frustrating to have a new(?) IP editor (who had not contributed to the article) appear 'out of the blue' to attack my edits and begin reverting them while refusing to sign his edits - appearing more like a vandal than a contributing editor. Then, after dealing with that for some time, that editor would disappear only to be replaced by another IP editor (with a different IP address) doing the same thing in a slightly different way. Finally, that IP editor disappeared after being warned for edit warring and disruptive behavior, and another new editor (registered since 2006) showed up to personally attack this editor and begin yet another edit war with more reverts. None of these sequential identities (IP addresses or registered name) were identified at any time as the same person.
I lived through it and can only relate that each appeared to be a completely new editor joining in the attack. Only after I later took the time to analyze the contribution histories of each identity, and the writing style, did I suspect these multiple identities to be the same person and exposed it on the talk page. As I read the Wiki Sock Puppet definition, I didn't see an exception for sequential identities. I did see that such behavior (sequential or not) is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. For example, "...make problematic edits as an IP" is forbidden. "Reviving old unused accounts and presenting them as different users" is forbidden. "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people". From my standpoint, all these tactics were used against me in personal attacks as well as attacks on my edit content.
Perhaps you will re-think your position that my complaint was an "attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." In response, I am compelled to state that I was simply trying to constructively deal with forbidden behavior.
What? No comment?
Computer Guy 2 ( talk) 21:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a quick browse through these contribs? I'm not 100% sure, but it looks rather like vandalism by abuse of tags. If I'm offbase, just delete this and ignore. Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl! 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi - any chance we could finally block this editor? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokan995. Wasn't blocked the first time (only the socks were), this is the second set of confirmed socks. Don't particularly want to do it myself as I've been reverting on the article (though only per this report, I have no interest in the article personally). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
While the two IPs were blocked in this SPI, there was no comment about whether the Master was involved. I tried to present evidence that because Hulcys930 copied and pasted material ( [19], [20], and [21]) similar to that of one of the now-blocked IPs( [22], it's likely that Hulcys930 is the master account. Not sure why the master wasn't also blocked per WP:DUCK. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
please note the comment i left on the investigation page. claviere has made insulting remarks. one worse than the other. what can i do about this? -- mustihussain ( talk) 18:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts regarding my recent SPI - Ancient indian historian/Sumitkachroo etc. The outcome was not quite as I suspected it would be and for that I apologise. I think by now you are probably familiar with my name appearing in SPI reports. I am at present working mostly in a rather disrupted topic area & it embarrasses me that I am having to file so many of these reports. The editing patterns are complex and, yes, sometimes I get them wrong. Mine is not (I think) a bad record but I really would prefer not to have to go down this particular road in the first instance and on those occasions when I do so and it is not a "perfect result", well, I feel as if I have wasted the time of other people. Still learning, I guess! Whether my suspicions are confirmed or refuted, those of you who deal with this stuff have my admiration. - Sitush ( talk) 23:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, if I remember correctly, you know Japanese, which I think would be helpful on what I can only call the strange situation at Fiona Graham. There's a fair bit of reverting, I suspect socking or meat-puppeting going on, and it's not a dispute I much want to be involved with, but I think needs eyes. I came on it completely unadvertantly, through Murasaki Shikibu that I've finished expanding which brought me to Liza Dalby - the dispute has spilled over there which brought me to Fiona Graham. Anyway, the information on the talkpages and in the history of Fiona Graham should show what's going on. Let me know if you'd like me to post on the talk pages that I've asked for you to take a look. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 01:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sent you one two. Are you on IRC right now? Elockid ( Talk) 01:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, what did your comment meant here? I don´t get "tautological evidence" and what means "CU"? Did i did something the wrong way? Kante4 ( talk) 08:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(User is probably not watching my TP, so TB-ing after a few hours.) Kudu ~I/O~ 22:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me like the reason the case wasn't marked as "checked" was AGK's request for another checkuser to review the issue of a range-block. Since no checkuser has responded to that, I'm not sure closing it is a good idea.— Kww( talk) 22:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
See User talk:75.243.50.224. Care to take care of this? -- Jayron 32 01:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Somehow, my account name is tied in with this IP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.27.81.41
When I created my account, I used a very weak password and haven't got around to change it. I would not be surprised if its been compromised. I just changed it now after I was just made aware of strange happening. Someone made an allegation that I was "sockpupetting" and linked my user name with an IP address from Romania. I have nothing to do with the discussion of Slowking4 and the edits that was made under this IP on Traffic Power and Aaron Wall was not made by me.
Can you tell me if there's been any log-ins to account from IP subnet other than the one I am on as I post this?
How exactly did my user name get tied with this IP and is there anyway I can see IP history in my account?
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
20:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
Since you closed this SPI case, how do I go about reopening it? I have additional information/evidence to add and would like to restate elements of the existing evidence. Thanks in advance. Digirami ( talk) 02:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
In
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke/Archive, a bunch of IPs were reported as socks of
User:Yogesh Khandke. Of course, CU won't connect usernames to IPs, but you (rightly, IMO) concluded that the IPs were someone editing while logged out, so you blocked the IPs for a week. I actually think some of the IP edits belonged to other editors, based on some wording choices, but that's not so important. However, another editor pointed out to me that on Metawiki, Yogesh mistakenly edited while logged out revealing his IP, and then went back in and corrected the signature in a comment to include his username. That edit is at
[25]. The IP address that Yogesh takes responsibility for is very close in range to some of those reported in the SPI. Yogesh has explicitly stated that the IP edits were not his (see the third and fourth paragraphs of
User Talk:Yogesh Khandke#Reply to remark made on blocking admin's page). If I'm using the IP CIDR calculator correct, then one of the addresses in the SPI and one the address from meta fall within a /23 range, which if I further understand correctly, is only 512 IP addresses. That makes it seem pretty darn likely that at least one of the edits to ANI that caused the SPI report actually came from Yogesh Khandke, editing while logged out to intentionally avoid scrutiny. That leaves me with a few questions. First, are we even allowed to look at the IP address from Meta, or is that instead supposed to be ignored and suppressed? If we can look at it, that then leads to the question as to whether any further actions should be taken against Yogesh. In a certain sense, action now would be questionable, since this involves edits from over a week ago; on the other hand, it would be helpful to have a permanent record somewhere if YK is, in fact, using IPs as a means to avoid scrutiny. The only edits that YK has made since the SPI have been to start preparing to take action against
User:EyeySerene for an earlier block of YK.
06:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock_request_for_IPadWanderer. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
HelloAnnyoung, please look here [26]. It's a report on Meowy with all evidence. Dighapet ( talk) 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 18 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 18 |
Is there some, um, conclusion to be drawn from the fact that that your edit count at WP:3O has been stuck at 666 since May 25? Do we need to call in an exorcist? Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Jackjit's back! The banned user Jackjit is again vandalizing Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld article again (and others) using his revolving 118 IP. He is again making the same edits he tried to make over a month ago when he was blocked. Please, can we put a stop to this quicker than last time? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit) -- RedEyedCajun ( talk) 11:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it sounds far fetched but my gut feeling (Baseball Bugs and I, we seemed to have that ability to sniff out socks for some strange reason) is telling me that he is indeed using that IP to return here, taking very great care to avoid his old topic. I acknowledge that there has been a boatload of similar IP behaviours but this guy is really cunning, there's subtlety in his edit which I can't pinpoint but the similar way of nick-picking at words and with concise edit summaries both produces. Without provocations, he won't react and I merely just pointed out to him about something in his word of choice and he blew his top, something not missed by me when I went through his edit and noted in his BAN endorsement. The lapse between now and 2008 might not produce anything concrete but the similar pattern of outburst is something worth watching out for. Also, it took Σ to provide that critical link which I lacked until yesterday that I was finally able to connected the dots. That said, what is your advice/thought on this and if so, what other course of action should I undertake? Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you were the blocking admin for Cyperuspapyrus, can you have a look at this edit, the bit about "I personally don't understand why there's always a proposal for deletion in pages concerning kickboxing organizations" seems fishy given his past contributions. Mt king (edits) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, would like to ask for advice. If a user with limited history of contributions participates in discussion like a pro, is there any way to check for sock-puppetry? -- Ashot ( talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
for endless outstanding work as an SPI clerk | |
ever since I can remember reporting or reading about sockpuppets, you've been calmly and efficiently dealing with them. I therefore take great pleasure in awarding you the sockpuppet-confuzzling barnstar. Keep up the great work! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
I have no idea if you do barnstar-type things, and I realise your userpage doesn't accommodate them, but I thought it should be said. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 02:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for wasting your time regarding the above investigation. There is something odd going on but clearly it is not socking. - Sitush ( talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You protected this page claiming "persistent sockpuppetry". There is no such thing. You should not give dishonest justifications when in fact you seem to be protecting it to give the upper hand to one side in a content dispute. 2.220.204.70 ( talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what evidence you apparently believe there is of any sockpuppetry related to edits to this article, much less "persistent sockpuppetry". Please explain your protection on the talk page. Talk:Van Tuong Nguyen. Thanks, -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In this SPI, I have filed a new case, but the preceding one hasn't been archived. Just wondering if something was wrong. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
℥ nding· start 04:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI: I've also left a note about the most recent socks at User talk:Tnxman307, who is already familiar with the user and was the one to investigate the original report (now in the archive). --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
See WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how anything I added is a "soapbox" or advertising in anyway. The Maryland Renaissance Festival is a business. As a business, they set prices for their product. To say what the rate of a product is is only statistical information, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.103.46 ( talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason I added the IP was that Whois reported it a static IP. If there's a relation between this IP and the blocked users, blocking the IP may prevent further vandalism. I assume the vandal will be back within the next 24 hours as Spartanmastah3 or TheGreatness4. -- Denniss ( talk) 01:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong,
Will I be stepping on your toes if I block Jww047 for 29 days, to match the 1 month block on his two IP's? I'm familiar with the Jww047 situation, and have brought myself up to speed on the latest ANI and SPI. He's disruptive and is, it seems, immune to requests, advice, and warnings. He edit wars interchangeably with his account and his IP's, often to add BLP violations to an article. His IP's are both blocked for a month for behavior that he is now continuing with his account.
I note that you declined to block the account in the SPI, so I'll hold off until I hear from you in case I'm missing something that you see. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've added an additional sock here. Since the investigation was closed, I'm not sure if I was supposed to do that or open another case. Please advise. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 00:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wliiam·Shakespeare. The sock in question is NapoleoneBonaparte ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I misspelled Fatima when I meant user Fantimiya. I have left an apology for Fatima, reverted myself there, and corrected the name on the Sockpuppetry page. Edward321 ( talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You have misspelled it again. It is Fatimiya. This accusation of sock-puttery has no basis. However, as I have made a report, I believe Edward321 and Jeff3000 are indeed sock-puppets -- Fatimiya ( talk) 09:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Edward321 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeff3000. The notes for the 1st apply to the second -- Fatimiya ( talk) 09:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
He's shopping around for help to make his edits (and is succeeding), just as his LONG history shows he has done many times in his past when he can't get his way on an article. Please look at his unfair mischief here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Red_Eye_w.2F_Greg_Gutfeld
This is totally discouraging to me as I have done my very best to follow all wiki policy to improve this place called Wiki. If this shopping around for others by so-called banned/blocked user is allowed to stand, then the Wiki community can count me out as an editor and it really saddens me to say that because for the most part, I have really enjoyed being here and learning/helping to create a better Wiki for all. But I won't be lied about by the likes of a Jackjit and others he recruits (with notorious edit histories) to do his bidding. Can't something real be done to block this guy or is Wiki a hopeless case when it comes to fairness? -- RedEyedCajun ( talk) 10:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
These are in fact only questions not complaints, so don't worry. This Sockpuppet investigations (once I was incorrectly included in a list for someone elses sockpuppet IDs) was my first at reporting, so I have some simple questions for you, just to understand the process and it's meaning, since it was closed so much faster then I imagined.
Thanks for helping out a Newbe when I comes to this kind of stuff-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 02:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thankk for helping a Sockpuppet Newbe -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 06:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uwo222#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments for my detailed response. Please let me know if you need more. Kurdo777 ( talk) 06:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you about this. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrendanFrye, you commented that I should relist when new things happen. How do I do that or where can I check the procedure to do that? Because another IP with a similar range made some similar reverts as its first contributions. At least this one did something other than reverting, but it does appear to be the same user. Jfgslo ( talk) 00:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you have a look at Hetoum's recent case? Thanks in advance.-- Ehud ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been around here long enough now to see the countless hours put into chasing sockpuppets and their dynamic IP addresses. As you all know, Internet Service Providers have strict "Terms of Use/Service" agreements with their customers. In these TOS agreements, it clearly states that if the customer uses the ISP services to damage or destroy websites, or for other harassing type of behavior on the Internet, then that service will be terminated. So, after years of chasing some of these "banned users" here on Wikipedia, I think a good case could be presented to an Internet Service Provider that one of their customers is doing great damage harassing the Wikipedia project and wasting the resources of Wikipedia. All you would have to show is a history of damage/harassment done by the sockpuppet/dynamic IP and the exact times the IP made those edits identified as vandalism, then the ISP could trace it back to a particular customer and terminate their service. Obviously this would only be used in extreme cases which have gone on for many months or years. I'm certain someone at Wiki must have thought of this before, so what is the problem with implementing this as policy on Wiki? -- RedEyedCajun ( talk) 07:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong - just requesting a bit of input on User:AmieRoseLong. I've put their unblock on-hold. I feel inclined to decline this request but considering that there was slim (if convincing) evidence of sockery I'd like to run their unblock request this by your eyes before declining (in case it sheds more light on the case for you in either way)-- Cailil talk 15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. I'm writing to follow-up on your comment made here [1] about Keanubreeze and Theonlinewriting1. You mentioned that they do not have article overlap. But an edit made by each editor on an additional topic (a disease) on two different articles seem to further suggestion a strong overlap in editing patterns: [2] [3]. These would not turn up on the automated report, but please do take a look at the diffs. Wouldn't that double overlap suggest WP:DUCK? ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for attending to the case so quickly. Your closing opinion on the matter is much appreciated. Will do. Viriditas ( talk) 03:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Sydney bluegum was topic banned as a SPA that was here just for advocating, the small number of other pages both he and ?oygul have edited means there will not be many hits on pages they both edit, as both editors only really edit one page. They are in the same city, but if they have dynamic IPs, that would be what you would expect to see. I am not trying to start a which hunt here, but in this case what is the best thing to do? Just wait and see if ?oyogul builds more of an editing pattern? At what point would there be grounds for further action? Colincbn ( talk) 02:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This SPI is about to archive, but there's a new report there. Is there a tag I need to change/remove? - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You may not have noticed the autoblock un-block request on The.aviation.expert, can you reconsider the CU on this account as The.aviation.expert has admitted he is a returning user, and think a check is in order to see if he is avoiding community sanctions. Mt king (edits) 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with how SPIs work, but I have User talk:Zappyzac on my wathchlist so when they said [4] I figured I should pass it on to somebody. I looked up the SPI at [5] to figure out what was going on and saw that you'd said "Neither account has edited in the past month, so I don't think we need the full workup for a one-off like that. (Based on edits I'm not even really convinced they're the same.) Relist if this case becomes active, or start a new case if the other master/sock does more." So I think this means you'd want to know about Zappyzac's recent edit? Cloveapple ( talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Your decision to label the suspected socks as sockpuppets solely based on them all making the same undo was questionable at best, and ultimately not supported by the technical evidence. I've noted this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_w.2F_Sockpuppets; this is a courtesy note advising you of the same. – xeno talk 04:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Please make a followup comment on my talk page [6] regarding your suspicions. Are those edits mine or not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luísarfs ( talk • contribs) 08:03, August 7, 2011
Thanks for the quick action with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokhaiz Kaunpal, this is really getting too much of my time, when it is so very WP:DUCK. I'm sure I'll get my personal attack again, but nevermind that. I'm pretty sure his "articles" will not survive PROD, but should anything be done with Iblees Ki Majlis-e-Shura? -- Muhandes ( talk) 14:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear administrator. Because you are aware of sockpuppeting tricks of users involved in this report [7], can you please look at suspicions and evidence? Dighapet ( talk) 14:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a follow-on to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lloydbaltazar/Archive.
You had previously blocked this IP for three days as part of the closure of this case. The master account, Lloydbaltazar, was blocked 48 hours for edit warring by Satori Son on August 2 per an ANI complaint. Now both Lloyd and this sock have vigorously returned to editing. One article involved is Our Lady of Perpetual Help (history) where both have edited. Since Lloyd's edits are often contentious and he could be heading toward a longer block, I don't see why he should edit disputed articles with both his account and an IP. My long spiel here is to propose a block of the IP of at least a month. I wanted to run it past another admin to check my reasoning, though. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 14:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. A.B.C.Hawkes ( talk · contribs) has just trolled on WP:AE. I have reverted these edits and informed Elen of the Roads, as she is aware of the wikistalking by A.K.Nole. This concerns this SPI report:
I already made this request of Elen of the Roads, but, if she has not already done so, could you please now the three sockpuppets (Echigo mole, Old Crobuzon and A.B.C.hawkes)?
Thanks in advance, Mathsci ( talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. I'm not sure if you recall, but about a week or so ago you blocked two accounts for sockpuppet abuse ( User:أبو الحارث بن قيس عيلان & User:Antime); c.f. [8]. Both were confirmed via Checkuser. You rather generously left the sockmaster account, one User:Prince jasim ali, unblocked with the explanation that it seemed as though the editor had perhaps switched to a new username. However, as I showed in the sock case, the editor never actually stopped using his old Antime account nor did he ever indicate that he had switched over to the new Prince jasim ali one. Instead, he created yet another sock account, which he used simultaneously as the main account, typically hopping back and forth between them within minutes of each other. In other words, he was pretending to be several people at once/abusing the accounts and over the same general range of articles. This is in breach of WP:ILLEGIT, which indicates that "editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people". Wikipedia:Clean start also indicates that "a clean start is when a user sets aside an old account in order to start fresh with a new account, where the old account is clearly discontinued and the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities", and that actual "clean start accounts should not return to the same topic areas or editing patterns if there is a strong desire to separate from the initial account." However, as can clearly be seen in the sock case, the user went right back to the exact same kinds of behaviors and activities as he used to under his Antime account, and on many of the same pages to boot. Worse, the user's one unblocked account has now again gone right back to edit-warring and removing reliable sources on several of the same articles that he was disrupting previously (e.g. [9]). Given all of the foregoing as well as the sock case, would you please reconsider your decision to not ban the sockmaster account? Regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 10:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've recreated the 2011 Avis Amur Antonov An-12 crash article, as the version that got deleted was the one I originally wrote under the title of Avis Anur Antonov An-12 crash last night (with a few typos fixed). I'll write a new version of the aircrash that happened on Monday, starting from scratch. Both of these accidents pass WP:AIRCRASH and deserve to have articles. Mjroots ( talk) 05:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you finally close the latest investigation? It seems it hasn't been archived yet. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hello - five plus years here, but this was my first ever SPI report. I check WP:AN/I over breakfast, always worrying my name will be mentioned for WP:COMPETENCE, inter alia. And it appears I dun good there. Thanks for that little !vote of confidence! - -- Shirt58 ( talk) 10:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an ongoing investigation against me and other users about having multiple SPAs. While most other users have been cleared of being sockpuppets, the clerk reviewing the case mentioned I and another user had at one point the same IP address. I have had literally dozens of IPs because they are dynamic and change periodically through no fault of my own. I tried to go back to my previous edits and show examples of how these IPs have been used or are currently being used by other Wikipedia editors all across the country both before and after they had been assigned to me. The clerk reviewing this information dismissed my points saying I had used one of the other editors computers, and I can assure you 100% that is not the case and this is the absolute only device I have ever used to edit on Wikipedia.
He has not been back to comment or close the case despite me having provided extra relevant info on my previous IP addresses which I openly claim not as sockpuppet master, but as an editor who only recently signed up for an account. I even tried to go back to the articles I had previously edited and jotted down all the ones I could find to share them with others. I admit I often use open WiFi networks, shared networks, as well as my own internet not out of malice, but to supplement my limited internet data plan. I believe there is a coincidence at play with the one IP address because of me having accessed the same dynamic IP address as other editors on several occasions (all different editors around the country and uninvolved with this case) and made my point in the SPA page which you gave the go ahead to look into. At this point I am not so concerned with the outcome of the investigation as much as all the new SPA investigations I am being dragged into by editors from the Marisol Deluna talk page while this investigation is still open. Could you review this case and the page in question please?? BbBlick ( talk) 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. You are an admin. I have seen around, and I am trying to to get some action on a sock investigation and nothing is happening except a bunch of bickering by interested parties on the page. No admins. There was a totally specious request about ME which received immediate attention (I was cleared in an hour.) It would really help with the page if my suspicions could get born out, or cleared. Can you help? Page: Marisol Deluna. Investigation here.
VQuakr ( talk) 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I don't quite know how the "s" disappeared. When you deleted and restored the page, the semiprotection because of persistent socking seems to have been dropped. Was that an accident? Mathsci ( talk) 08:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Kallieriastus ( talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you looked into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JeanColumbia Isn't there going to be any action against the person making this false accusation against a respected WP editor? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A second request to move the article "tree shaping" to "arborsculpture" has been opened. Since you have previously been involved in the subject, you may wish to participate in the discussion. AfD hero ( talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I notice that you closed the investigation of this case. I wonder if it would be possible to re-open it to see if ?oygul is a sock of user:Blackash? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Urbanuntil 1 - this page doesn't seem to link back to the archive but rather presents just sort of a stub sock puppet report - JohnInDC ( talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Regard this SPI request, I sent you material linking the editor to the IP off-wiki as it revealed personal information. At the time the disruption appeared to have stopped but appears to be starting again. Is it relevant to reprise it? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey again, I need your help with Ranbirk ( talk · contribs) - the guy kept edit warring on Priyanka Chopra and personally attacking me while also harrassing me on my talk page. His versions were full of POV, unsourced edits, grammar errors. Now this was the last straw when he started using very abusive language in Hindi in his last edit summary against me (I would translate it to you but trust me it's better to avoid it). I've warned him before, I could not handle his poor edits, the guy hardly writes proper English and then accuses me of being biased for no fault of my own. He also has a sock puppet - Wallvelvet ( talk · contribs) through which he awarded himself banstars (and me too, which I removed as I knew he was trying to prevent me from opposing to his edits). I request your help as I'm fed up. Shahid • Talk2me 20:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I missed it. Mea culpa. Somehow, I thought it was a recent post. Insert trout-slap here. Thanks, JoeSperrazza ( talk) 02:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
So the sock case determined these two are meatpuppets--what's next, a block or a warning? Blueboy 96 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
At the Sockpuppet investigation [12] you stated. "Hmm... they only have the Tree shaping talk page in common, so I have a feeling they're offline friends or something. I'm closing with no action taken for now."
If editing the same page is proof of being offline friends, your feelings should also be applied to Duff and Slowart, Colincbn and Martin, Grisium and Slowart. These pairs of editors have extensively edited the same articles. Slowart, Duff and Grisium have edited Axel Erlandson, Grafting, Tree shaping and others. I don't think this is a good way to deicde if editors know each other. The point I'm making is relevant to the editors' behaviour and your feelings about that behaviour, not the topic. Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I request the you remove the block on Kris Jordan. The article, as it stands now, is completely illiterate and contains minimal factual information. The "sock-puppets" that supposedly have plagued the article contributed very little, if any, negative information--certainly, the person was not a vandal. But the article needs to be re-written irrespectively of that person's desire for changes.
Alex.deWitte ( talk) 05:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Can I point you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos, please? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I had zero connection to any of those anon addresses. BrendanFrye ( talk) 19:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
hes back again in 2 days, the evidence is even clearer now and i opened a case at SPI. Can we lock down both the pages for osome 3 months or so? Lihaas ( talk) 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
hi HelloAnnyong! You have previously edited the article Azerbaijani American, that's why I decided to ask you to look at this version of the page [13] I have done many edits to it, expanded it tremendously, added many fresh, new sources, including unique statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, and in general made this article more consistent with other similar articles about "hyphenated Americans", such as Russian American, Turkish American, Iranian American, Armenian American, etc. This version of the article, however, keeps being reverted by some users, including IP anons [14], who are otherwise never improving the article in any way, content with keeping it in a sorry state and just revert. The article as well as its talk page could benefit from your insight and knowledge. I have left extensive comments myself, and each time I edited, I left an overwhelming number of sources, going above and beyond of what's necessary. I don't want this simple article to become artificially polarized, and thus think your "two cents" would help improve it. -- Saygi1 ( talk) 00:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
May I question this? -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to comment here because you've requested that we let this go on the now closed SPI. First of all, I appreciate you trying to provide a justification for Cerejota's initial suspicion, but unfortunately, it is completely and totally unjustified. Yopienso is a woman who has been here for a long time without any problems whatsoever. She's known for never edit warring, for being polite, and for remaining calm in a dispute. Gise, on the other hand, is a guy who recently created an account and has a personality and POV that is completely at odds with Yopienso in every way. Yes, sometimes people agree and edit at the same time, but that never is a justification for starting an SPI. Cerejota initiated the SPI because he quite clearly and unambiguously misunderstood a comment by Yopienso. The irony, of course, is that the comment in question was a statement by Yopienso indirectly accusing Gise of being a sock. Why would someone who was socking accuse their sock of being a sock? Seriously, there is no justification for this SPI at all, and Cerejota made a mistake. It should be deleted to clear Yopienso's name. Viriditas ( talk) 03:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, she has been highly uncivil towards me and others, so I question characterization as an un-problematic user. -- Cerejota ( talk) 04:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have watched this with bemusement and have to agree 100% that Cerejota abused the SPI process by raising this in the first place (for reasons that aren't clear it seems he just doesn't like Yopienso), and your meatpuppet accusation - without any evidence other than a few coincidentally timed edits - is way out of line and you do owe Yopienso an apology. Cise & Yopienso may well just happen to live in the same timezone. Did you consider that? They don't show any similarity in personality. They don't share any common bias. They appear do not even appear to speak the same language (there's plenty of evidence that Gise, if he is not someone's sockpuppet, is not a native English speaker). The idea that Yopienso has this crazy obsessive friend call "Gise" and is pretending otherwise is laughably stupid - if you had bothered to do any investigation that is. Alex Harvey ( talk) 02:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
es look at my (ec) additional evidence. Its either meaty or two browsers. However, why is no action needed if there is a block? Can't an investigation close as confirmed or possible with a permanent block? -- Cerejota ( talk) 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
My request, Annyong, that I wanted to post on the SPI page, was for a checkuser. I see you have closed it and it will be archived. I am not OK with that. If you run a check (although I'm very low tech and don't really know what that means, but assume it might check our IP addresses or something) you will find absolutely no connection between Gise and me. I think it's only fair to me to allow this to be settled. Thank you. Yopienso ( talk) 04:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes when one is exposed for extended periods to some of the seamier sides of the project, there is a blunting of the ability to assume good faith or to be able to identify benign reasons for actions that might in some circumstances be questionable. It is important, as an SPI clerk, that you be able to step back and look at things with an impartial eye, and to act conservatively. The initial complaint essentially boiled down to "these people disagree with me" - which isn't even a reason for an SPI, and the file should probably have been closed right there without any further investigation. I encourage you to insist that the complainants provide you with sufficient evidence before you start hunting for more. In particular, wikistalk is not a particularly useful tool for sockpuppetry reviews, especially when comparing accounts that are both editing within the same topic area; they are likely to communicate with the same people, use the same talk pages and so on. Risker ( talk) 06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
As a previously interested editor, your input is invited over at older discussion and newer discussion (mostly by just me), about this embedded list. If I'm off base, I'd rather hear it from two editors rather than one. It's not really a dispute, so formal WP:3O isn't really on yet. -- Lexein ( talk) 00:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi! On 12 August you blocked, this user for abusing multiple accounts and also blocked several of his current sock puppets. He's now finished his block and has just this morning used another new anon IP:- 203.173.31.97 to alter his previous 'George SJ XXI' edits on both his talk page and the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington talk page, which is an article he was edit warring on and received a block four days prior to yours for that issue, from EyeSerene. As he doesn't seem to have learned his lesson would it be possible to block this new anon IP and issue a further and longer block to his main username for persistent abuse of multiple accounts? Also please note that he is currently engaged in some sort of complex editing of his talkpage in and out of archive mode, with deletions of warnings from admins, and making it appear he has no previous talk page contents, see here. Richard Harvey ( talk) 11:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, HelloAnnyong. I've posted a response at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRATTOOO. There actually are multiple IPs that can be checked against the latest sock investigation. Can you reevaluate based on that? Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 04:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
All the socks of Bokan995 ( talk · contribs) were created after he was blocked for edit warring, I'm convinced they were created to avoid another block, hard to have good faith when that happens. Dougweller ( talk) 09:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows is a sockpupet for User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day and opened a case earlier today which was immediately closed. It turns out that a previous investiation was opened earlier this month and closed by you.
You said "I'm not 100% convinced of it, and OnlyGodTheFatherKnows has gone stale. Closing for now".
This SPA User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows is now participating in an AfD discussion which is discussing the same article as User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day and her/his many puppets have attempted to own over the years. Could you kindly please take a look again? Thanks. -- Fasttimes68 ( talk) 18:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm neither complaining about nor appealing your decision regarding sock puppetry by AceD. Since you concluded "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means.", I would like to respond. I've been an active editor for a couple of years now, and only recently have had to deal with this situation.
I do clearly understand that any of my edits may be boldly and ruthlessly edited by other editors.
From my standpoint, it's extremely frustrating to have a new(?) IP editor (who had not contributed to the article) appear 'out of the blue' to attack my edits and begin reverting them while refusing to sign his edits - appearing more like a vandal than a contributing editor. Then, after dealing with that for some time, that editor would disappear only to be replaced by another IP editor (with a different IP address) doing the same thing in a slightly different way. Finally, that IP editor disappeared after being warned for edit warring and disruptive behavior, and another new editor (registered since 2006) showed up to personally attack this editor and begin yet another edit war with more reverts. None of these sequential identities (IP addresses or registered name) were identified at any time as the same person.
I lived through it and can only relate that each appeared to be a completely new editor joining in the attack. Only after I later took the time to analyze the contribution histories of each identity, and the writing style, did I suspect these multiple identities to be the same person and exposed it on the talk page. As I read the Wiki Sock Puppet definition, I didn't see an exception for sequential identities. I did see that such behavior (sequential or not) is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. For example, "...make problematic edits as an IP" is forbidden. "Reviving old unused accounts and presenting them as different users" is forbidden. "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people". From my standpoint, all these tactics were used against me in personal attacks as well as attacks on my edit content.
Perhaps you will re-think your position that my complaint was an "attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." In response, I am compelled to state that I was simply trying to constructively deal with forbidden behavior.
What? No comment?
Computer Guy 2 ( talk) 21:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a quick browse through these contribs? I'm not 100% sure, but it looks rather like vandalism by abuse of tags. If I'm offbase, just delete this and ignore. Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl! 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi - any chance we could finally block this editor? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokan995. Wasn't blocked the first time (only the socks were), this is the second set of confirmed socks. Don't particularly want to do it myself as I've been reverting on the article (though only per this report, I have no interest in the article personally). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
While the two IPs were blocked in this SPI, there was no comment about whether the Master was involved. I tried to present evidence that because Hulcys930 copied and pasted material ( [19], [20], and [21]) similar to that of one of the now-blocked IPs( [22], it's likely that Hulcys930 is the master account. Not sure why the master wasn't also blocked per WP:DUCK. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
please note the comment i left on the investigation page. claviere has made insulting remarks. one worse than the other. what can i do about this? -- mustihussain ( talk) 18:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts regarding my recent SPI - Ancient indian historian/Sumitkachroo etc. The outcome was not quite as I suspected it would be and for that I apologise. I think by now you are probably familiar with my name appearing in SPI reports. I am at present working mostly in a rather disrupted topic area & it embarrasses me that I am having to file so many of these reports. The editing patterns are complex and, yes, sometimes I get them wrong. Mine is not (I think) a bad record but I really would prefer not to have to go down this particular road in the first instance and on those occasions when I do so and it is not a "perfect result", well, I feel as if I have wasted the time of other people. Still learning, I guess! Whether my suspicions are confirmed or refuted, those of you who deal with this stuff have my admiration. - Sitush ( talk) 23:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, if I remember correctly, you know Japanese, which I think would be helpful on what I can only call the strange situation at Fiona Graham. There's a fair bit of reverting, I suspect socking or meat-puppeting going on, and it's not a dispute I much want to be involved with, but I think needs eyes. I came on it completely unadvertantly, through Murasaki Shikibu that I've finished expanding which brought me to Liza Dalby - the dispute has spilled over there which brought me to Fiona Graham. Anyway, the information on the talkpages and in the history of Fiona Graham should show what's going on. Let me know if you'd like me to post on the talk pages that I've asked for you to take a look. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 01:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sent you one two. Are you on IRC right now? Elockid ( Talk) 01:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, what did your comment meant here? I don´t get "tautological evidence" and what means "CU"? Did i did something the wrong way? Kante4 ( talk) 08:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(User is probably not watching my TP, so TB-ing after a few hours.) Kudu ~I/O~ 22:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me like the reason the case wasn't marked as "checked" was AGK's request for another checkuser to review the issue of a range-block. Since no checkuser has responded to that, I'm not sure closing it is a good idea.— Kww( talk) 22:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
See User talk:75.243.50.224. Care to take care of this? -- Jayron 32 01:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Somehow, my account name is tied in with this IP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.27.81.41
When I created my account, I used a very weak password and haven't got around to change it. I would not be surprised if its been compromised. I just changed it now after I was just made aware of strange happening. Someone made an allegation that I was "sockpupetting" and linked my user name with an IP address from Romania. I have nothing to do with the discussion of Slowking4 and the edits that was made under this IP on Traffic Power and Aaron Wall was not made by me.
Can you tell me if there's been any log-ins to account from IP subnet other than the one I am on as I post this?
How exactly did my user name get tied with this IP and is there anyway I can see IP history in my account?
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
20:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Greetings,
Since you closed this SPI case, how do I go about reopening it? I have additional information/evidence to add and would like to restate elements of the existing evidence. Thanks in advance. Digirami ( talk) 02:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
In
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke/Archive, a bunch of IPs were reported as socks of
User:Yogesh Khandke. Of course, CU won't connect usernames to IPs, but you (rightly, IMO) concluded that the IPs were someone editing while logged out, so you blocked the IPs for a week. I actually think some of the IP edits belonged to other editors, based on some wording choices, but that's not so important. However, another editor pointed out to me that on Metawiki, Yogesh mistakenly edited while logged out revealing his IP, and then went back in and corrected the signature in a comment to include his username. That edit is at
[25]. The IP address that Yogesh takes responsibility for is very close in range to some of those reported in the SPI. Yogesh has explicitly stated that the IP edits were not his (see the third and fourth paragraphs of
User Talk:Yogesh Khandke#Reply to remark made on blocking admin's page). If I'm using the IP CIDR calculator correct, then one of the addresses in the SPI and one the address from meta fall within a /23 range, which if I further understand correctly, is only 512 IP addresses. That makes it seem pretty darn likely that at least one of the edits to ANI that caused the SPI report actually came from Yogesh Khandke, editing while logged out to intentionally avoid scrutiny. That leaves me with a few questions. First, are we even allowed to look at the IP address from Meta, or is that instead supposed to be ignored and suppressed? If we can look at it, that then leads to the question as to whether any further actions should be taken against Yogesh. In a certain sense, action now would be questionable, since this involves edits from over a week ago; on the other hand, it would be helpful to have a permanent record somewhere if YK is, in fact, using IPs as a means to avoid scrutiny. The only edits that YK has made since the SPI have been to start preparing to take action against
User:EyeySerene for an earlier block of YK.
06:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock_request_for_IPadWanderer. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
HelloAnnyoung, please look here [26]. It's a report on Meowy with all evidence. Dighapet ( talk) 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 18 |