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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for regularly helping to work through the sockpuppet cases. I know it is a fairly thankless, yet much needed, task. I appreciate how frequently I see your work on resolving the cases. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hey HelloAnnyong, if you have a minute, can you have a look at User_talk:Drmies#SC_Vaslui and see if I'm advising an editor correctly? Thanks, as always, Drmies ( talk) 14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Send me an email about this; I am thinking the block is not a good idea based on the checkuser. I just don't think there is enough to support a block and it just said "possible" for a match. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. NoHounding ( talk · contribs) is a new obvious sockpuppet of HaTikwa ( talk · contribs). His sole contributions consist of reinserting all the reference-spam that HaTikwa is so keen on (here and on just about every other wiki). Should Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa/Archive be reopened or can you simply block the new account? Cheers, Pichpich ( talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
He was banned for alleged copyright violations, not for spamming or self promo. Your acquaintance with all the details is prove enough that you are one of his hounders. Have fun. - NoHounding ( talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
"You"? Who are you talking to? NoHounding ( talk) 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Look, I really don't care about the backstory but I do care about the reference spam. These references are being reinserted blindly, systematically and without any indication that they are of substantial value. Perhaps even more problematic is that, as documented here by objective third-parties, library holdings for Mr. Kühntopf's work are so rare that linking to his book is basically linking to nowhere. It's hard to see how that benefits Wikipedia or in fact benefits anyone other than Mr. Kühntopf. Pichpich ( talk) 23:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Folks, this is my talk page, not a place to snipe at each other. If any of you think there's justification for an SPI case, feel free to open a case and we'll take a look. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I hate these templates, but I don't know how often you check your wiki e-mail :). Regards, AGK [ • 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. It's a shame that the above thread turned your talk page into a war zone and I'm sorry that I inadvertently set it all off. But my original question stands: what exactly is the procedure here? I'm not that familiar with the WP:SOCK process and I don't know if I should create a new case, bump the old one or go to you directly. Thanks, Pichpich ( talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. I'm not particularly familiar with the SPI process, however I just have a quick question about the case concerning User:Uthay6505 (SPI case here). I see that you have blocked and tagged the sockpuppet User:Rec006, but seeing as the sockpuppeteer was abusing the multiple accounts rule in an attempt to win a content-related consensus, is it not common procedure to block all accounts of the sockpuppeteer, including the main account? Thanks. Mato ( talk) 13:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
hello, please also see this [1]. I am not paranoid, the evidence supports Dighapet ( talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
First and foremost, your handle rocks. If you've never watched, you'll have to take my word that it's especially nifty. Also, thanks for handling the SPI I submitted. Wasn't sure whether to checkuser since they're equally likely a meaty variety. Again, my thanks. JFHJr ( ㊟) 01:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Should this [2] be reverted? Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 13:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey. So I've been testing out your tool. I've been getting a 500 Internal Server Error a couple of times while trying it out. Is this because of the tool, site, or my comp? Got another question. How far back does the tool go? Anyways, looks good so far. Elockid ( Talk) 03:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've found another problem. In the column which lists the page which has been edited, edits to (for example) Zoo Tycoon show up as Zoo Tycoon‎. OK, the extra "‎" is odd, but harmless. However, when edits are to pages in namespaces other than the mainspace, the full page name is not given, so that for example User talk:Denisarona shows up as Denisarona‎, making it look as though it is an edit to an article Denisarona. This obviously doesn't stop it being a useful tool, but you may like to see if you can clear it up. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sven Manguard Wha? 17:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think he is similar to user:NoHasbaraHere that was recently blocked.What do you think?Should I add him to the request.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw you closed this up today because the IP had gone quiet, so I thought I'd let you know that it's back and re-joining discussion on Talk:Least I Could Do and User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
A few days ago, you semi-protected Vassar College to help deter an unregistered editor who has persistently disrupted the article. The semi-protection ended yesterday and he or she has returned. Could you please semi-protect the article for a longer period so I can stop babysitting it? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 23:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
See User talk:Martijn Hoekstra#Unblock request from the list. Looks to be collateral from a recent block of 81.247.0.0/17 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)) that you put in place for Noisetier. Seems OK to create an account for them since they don't sound like Noisetier, from their email. This came in over unblock-en-l. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I really appriciate everything you do at WP:SPI. Also, sorry for being such a pain! The quacking was getting to me :) Ish dar ian 00:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC) |
I've just found another, active sock of User:12345678910callum: User:Reting23 seems to be following the exact same pattern. Do I need to open a new SPI case, or should I add this to the closed one?
Cheers, Yunshui ( talk) 14:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
HelloRohil ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Russavia Let's dialogue 21:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for the quick sock investigation on User:Heritage1 - he's mostly harmless, but generally plays by his own rules. Can you please undelete Alistair Smith, as Smith is a notable footballer according to our notability standards - I'll check it out to make sure it's appropriate. reading from WP:BAN.. "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content" - I'm happy to take that responsibility. Thanks. The-Pope ( talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Marcobadotti is unlikely to be related to both. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You marked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip126 ready for closure about 12 hours ago, but new, related behavior by another user has just occurred, and I'd like it examined as well before the case is archived. I've left a comment there with details. Thanks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Your candidate subpage has been created and transcluded to the above-noted location.
Please answer the standard questions and also keep watch for additional questions that may be posted by the community.
Thank you again for your offer to serve as a functionary. – xeno talk 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Im sorry to bother you but your are the most experienced administrator on these issues. Could you please take a look at this sockpuppet investigations concerning Hetoum I. Thanks for your efforts. Neftchi ( talk) 08:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that annoying IP Sock puppet case that seems ongoing. I thought for sure the editor had taken a vacation :) -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 06:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fellow editor, I noticed you bloced User:Pratipalsingh001 but his other id is still able to continue editing here. Thanks SH 07:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
May I ask why you put a warning about sock puppets on my page? I have been hassled by the queen of sox since day one here. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
What "evidence" is being referred to? I believe this is a Bad faith accusation. I am Really upset. Please see my response on the false accusation page. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there HelloAnnyong. Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet as per the SPI report results. Is there any way to block the account creation? Not only does this user master sockpuppets but he's insulting other users. This kind of insults should not be permitted. Tuscumbia ( talk) 13:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm perplexed by your decision on this SPI case. This was only the 2nd SPI I've raised and I'd like to understand. Abdulazeez,ani sockpuppets and gets an indefinite ban. Then (based on edit pattern and sig) comes back as Frank.diaz1994 and does it again. This time he only gets a 24h ban? Did you really intend for repeat offenders to get off more lightly? Cheers, Bazj ( talk) 07:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
User is asking for unblock, claiming it was a case of MEAT and not SOCK, and that they were unaware of the policy and will abide by it in the future. I'm inclined to AGF based on their request and the fact that there were no issues with disruptive editing or fake consensus biulding discussed at the SPI and unblock. Consulting you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi ... I'm not protesting your bottom line (as you saw, I thought wp:duck should be sufficient), but wouldn't a checkuser have the ability to indicate that the suspected master was also in the same city as the two IPs? Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 18:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Could you check whether User:Jorge Koli is related to the banned User:Mirwais Hotak a.k.a. User:Lagoo sab? I just have some reservations, looking at some of this user's editing patterns. Although this user did their first edit on the 11th of September, they seem to have an editing experience and know-how of Wikipedia that seems to precede the date. The latest sockpuppet of Lagoo sab, User:Mirwais Hotak, was blocked on the 2nd of September which is coincidentally 9 days before this user's first edit. Thanks and regards, Mar4d ( talk) 03:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Filed a report on suspicious accounts. Do you mind taking a look? Honestly, I lost track of what sock belongs to which puppeteer (could be Xebulon, Meowy or Aram-van), so I filed it under Hetoum I. Thank you! Tuscumbia ( talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not close the case yet, I intend to make an attempt to convince you. Hobartimus ( talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Add another to the long list of socks of Parrot32X.
Ugh! it never ends! -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I apparently opened a sockpuppet investigation on User:Fleetham and accidentally marked it as closed. Thanks for noticing, I have never done this before (obviously), please tell me if there is anything else I'm missing. Thanks, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you look again at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Octanis. I've added some clarifying info, which I accept should have been part of the initial review. The principal has since edit warred again on the Brian Crowley article, so issue not 'gone away'. Best. RashersTierney ( talk) 19:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have asked Risker to look into the allegations you made about the DocOfSoc case, because it shows a continuing pattern that matches your response to the Yopienso case. Editors are innocent until proven otherwise. You cannot reverse the burden of proof and ask them to prove their innocence. And without good evidence showing that an SPI is supported, you cannot continue to accuse editors of being guilty. Viriditas ( talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie ⚔ 02:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it will be difficult to find a relationship between the suspected socks of Arun1paladin solely based on geolocation. It is evident even to an editor without the CheckUser facility, that he edited Wikipedia from Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, two distant locations of India, within a period of 3 weeks. Don't you think the account is shared among several people who push the same POV in selected articles? In the Singapore article also, this similarity was observed by an editor in March 2010. What is the action that can be taken against such activity? Astronomyinertia ( talk) 07:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJ CG. The IP just reappeared and left you a message: [5]. Whatever should be done is your call. Thanks, Biophys ( talk) 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!-- Pharos ( talk) 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Badly bashed here. Help! I am KLM3618, and I created the Jan Rogers Kniffen page. I created it for two reasons. 1) I thought there should be one for someone as prominent in retailing as Mr. Kniffen. 2) I wanted to see if I could effectively create and edit an encyclopedic entry in the electronic world. (I have only edited in the print world up to now, and the conversion is pretty difficult, but hopefully not impossible.) So, no, my account does not exist to "puff up" Jan Rogers Kniffen. It exists to try to get the darned page right. I asked catmandone to create an account and take a shot at getting the page right, since I was having such a hard time with it. And, yes, it has sort of become a cause celebre for me now, but only for the right reasons. Thanks for your help. KLM3618 ( talk) 13:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Annyong. This user has made an unblock request. I'm inclined to accept the explanation. The SPI archive is here. Let me know what you think. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Fyi, I was also wondering what went wrong with that page. As you can see from the edit summary I didn't touch any closing templates when creating the SPI. Anyhow, thanks for fixing the status. De728631 ( talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, HelloAnnyong. I must thank you kindly for making your range contribution tool. Thank you. It's been an immense value to me as I often used X!'s tool before it went down. I see above that you've been working on the tool, so I was wondering if you might be able to add a feature. X!'s tool had the ability to scroll back in the contributions (i.e. next 50 link), which allowed me to look far back in to the contribution history of a range. Would it be possible to add a feature like that at some point down the road? I often dig deep in to the contributions so I thought I would ask.
While I'm here, I'd like to say I'm sorry you weren't appointed CU in this last round of appointments. FWIW, I emailed in my support for you as you've been doing great work at SPI for a good long while and I thought you could make good use of the tools. Thanks again for the new tool. It's really generous of you to help the community like that. Best regards. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother you if I should be raising this elsewhere but you recently closed a case, now in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive, which was raised by User:AssociateAffiliate who had been subjected to abuse by Daft who now operates as User:KestevenBullet. You rightly stated that the KB account had been stale for several months but it is now active again. I've already raised the current problems at WP:ANI under the "Multiple issues" topic but I was wondering if you could reopen AssociateAffiliate's case given recent developments including personal attacks and edit warring. Please advise me of what I should do if you are unable to help personally. Thanks for your time. ---- Jack | talk page 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting rid to those unused references on Occupy Wall Street. I just learned how to clean those up today but had been waiting to also change the formatting so this problem can be behind us on that page as this will simply occur every time a reference is found to be incorrect, unreliable or does not support the claim etc. I mentioned this on the talk page and will reiterate my intention to do further cleanup of references.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind sending me a quick e-mail? Cheers. WilliamH ( talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little confused - if you've blocked Alis9 as a sockpuppet of Wran, shouldn't Wran be blocked too, for misusing multiple accounts? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Explained, hopefully. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This guy created another sockpuppet almost immediately. This character made the same exact change as all of his previous sockpuppets have, and also has a similar name. I don't know precisely where to bring this up, maybe you can tell me? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 06:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Fresh of a short vacation, the crazy IP who adds original research is back with this latest IP! "98.82.114.48" I used one of the tools you suggested (although it seems to not play well with Twinkle) and reverted all of the editors garbage edits. What's next? Wait till they IP-hop again and just continue to revert? I'm sorry I'm a bit punchy, but it seems like not much has happened to stop this (I fear there isn't much that can be done about it). Thanks for any help you can give on this matter. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 02:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
DeltaQuad's SPI Award | |
Given to members of the community who take SPI seriously and show constant dedication and uphold clerk and community standards. This medal represents the honour to be serving with you on this team. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello HelloAnnyong/Archive 15! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
I always forget to post this: the tool is very useful, but the limit of 30 edits is a severe handicap - normally the tool was used to shut down a range for extended time (a few hours emergency block can be done without it), and 30 is way too little for that. Any chance to accept the user input for the limit number (which is set up as I understand)? Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong, The user you blocked on the 13th of October for evading his ban has returned and it looks like he has resumed the same pattern of disruptive edits. His previous IP (Checkuser confirmed he was User:By78) has received a longer term ban with an expiry date of a year and I was wondering if something similar could be implemented to prevent this user from continuing with his disruptive edits. Thanks 184.77.229.73 ( talk) 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Why did you mark case closed, saying you blocked already. The new IPs are not blocked and one was used just today: 142.157.116.112 BollyJeff || talk 03:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The disruptive edits have begun again, but this time the IP looks way out of normal per the other socks of Parrot32X. The edits are the same, its just a different IP I suspect: 108.209.237.15. Ugh! -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 04:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Your range script is quite helpful. Any chance it could be enhanced to include a higher number of contributions, the way Soxred93's script did? In some cases 300 or more would be a better limit (or no limit, just keep on paging back). In the cases I usually look at, I only care about a month or so but there could be a lot of contribs in a month. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking konguboy's sock Dumeelbatcha. I had asked for a sleeper check but the CU was denied as the data has become stale. However he has created another account Ohlikutty ( talk · contribs). Proof is - this account has recreated the article The Great Wall of Tamil Nadu with the same content as Madukkarai wall (created by one of his socks and deleted as CSD G5). It also uses the File:Sellandiyamman.JPG uploaded to commons by another of Konguboy's socks and which has remained unused since. Please block this account.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 07:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
WilliamH ( talk) 03:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the hacking relevant now? lols..-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 08:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I got this on my talk page, which is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creepy Crawler/Archive#15 September 2011.
I'm not sure if it's the user socking or if they are friend acting as a meatpuppet and if it rises to the "don't engage, just block" criteria.
= J Greb ( talk) 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
See [7] - looks like he hasn't given up socking. I've protected this page but he's editing other articles with various IPs. Any suggestions as to what to do about it? Thanks Dougweller ( talk) 08:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Can you please take a look at these two under Hetoum I's SPI? Thank you! Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A user requested a Sock Puppet investigation for two ip's that I use in which he/she gave no evidence or explanation of what I did, all he had was an accusation, yet you blocked both ip's for no reason. I request that you unblock those ip's as it is unnecessary and has no basis. This is the SPI page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacksoncw/Archive#Comments_by_other_users-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 01:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the check user request re: Destinero. I wasn't so sure with how it all worked when I first posted the sockpuppet investigation, and I figured I should have asked for a checkuser. So thanks! :) SarahStierch ( talk) 04:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
See here.
I thought the possible to likely association was with Proofplus, not with Ran kurosawa. Yet, the block of Technoratti was as a sock puppet of Ran kurosawa, as opposed to a block evasion by Proofplus. Did I miss something?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of those two! I'll keep an eye on the Star Wars canon article next week, tho, when the block on one of them expires... MikeWazowski ( talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
By this, do you mean this? It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Also - been meaning to ask, are you a fan of Arrested Development? pablo 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I would appreciate it if you look after this as the suspected sock is continuously removing all the stuff in the page and undoing edits without explanations. Secret of success Talk to me 12:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I read in the instructions while starting that evidence section should contain evidence only while the discussion should go in 'your own' section. So I reverted your headings change, hope its ok with you? or did I miss some format guideline? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Closed? What overlap? I guess atleast the IP should be blocked for the personal attacks on AVI and talk regardless of being a sock of the user or not. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain for me -- the closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iqinn -- does this confirm Iqinn used the open proxy? Or are open proxies always blocked?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend, our respected friend User:Manicjedi reported my self as Sock puppet as you can see my profile I have created good articles as well such as Halifax Community collage and few others as well and you may see my edit counts too and I honestly respect all the rules and principles of Wikipedia and we all are here to promote and make Wikipedia good place and useful for everyone around the world, but making it personal and reporting something which I have not done its not true, and its not appreciated as well, you all my friends here justify that, Is it correct as he gave the reason which was same IP so let me tell my brother sometimes I do editing from Internet Cafe, It might possible that some one edit it, anyways IN NUT SHELL reporting me as Sock puppet is not true therefore I would request you all to be cooperative please because its not about one individual its all about our own beloved WIKIPEDIA.-- Faizanalivarya ( talk) 07:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You participated in a third opinion request last year for the article Lion's share and agreed with me. Mzilikazi1939 is accusing you of being my associate, repeatedly making bad faith accusations against both of us. Since you are being mentioned in this dispute, I thought you should be aware of it. Talk:Lion's_share#Malicious_editing Dream Focus 13:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have not 'repeatedly made bad faith accusations' against you, HelloAnnyong. Dream Focus is trying to make mischief over a matter that he knows has been made the subject of a request to the Mediation Cabal. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course I opened this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/David Eppstein after they opened one against me, but this doesn't mean it can't be true. In my opinion David Eppstein=Ozob. It could be good to investigate, before to believe it couldn't be true only because they opened a case against me. Simply have a look to the history page of square pyramidal number. In my opionion it's not normal that when David Eppstein risks to violate the 3RR "magically" appears the user Ozob to revert a page. The SPI against me it is another business! Do I have to open another SPI?-- Romancio ( talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey HelloAnnyong, got a question. 69.66.209.3 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sock of User:Michael Paul Heart, aka Hermitstudy. I've blocked them already per DUCK, but I'd like to add them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hermitstudy/Archive, just for the record. Please tell me (one more time...) what to do. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, HelloAnnyong. You closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christiankkk, but it seems that the issue is not ended yet. A new SPA user:Franzberg started editing this article. I have suspicions that this account may also belong to user:Christiankkk; however, no disruptive editing yet. However, I think that it would be better to keep eye on this article due to massive SPA/COI issues and continues attempts to remove references about links to high officials of Ukraine. Yesterday when I discovered this article under creation process, started to improve it for submission and started to look references, I did not realized what kind of can of worms I just opened. Beagel ( talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning about my 'recent editing history at Lion's share'. It's not quite the ownership problem it may seem at first. Annielogue and I have an informal partnership and explain our changes of each other's edits on our respective talk pages. In the case of the first revert, you will have noticed that permission is given to change and I was about to reformat the image in question when I noticed that it wasn't free and also that the subject was of doubtful attribution. So I dropped a note on his/her talk page and also left the information that I had sought permission to use a less ambiguous illustration. The second revert was of the story he mentioned, which is from a different Aarne-Thompson grouping about which I again informed him. Leaving a message on the article's talk page would have been a more logical choice if it wasn't being patrolled at the moment by Dream Focus; I didn't want to fuel the dispute there any further.
It is kind of you to take an interest in the progress of the article. I hope by now that you have satisfied yourself that, beyond mentioning that folklore is not your specialism on the talk page, I have not been repeating defamatory accusations. I apologise for suspecting your good faith on the earlier occasion a year ago. Your abruptness then took me aback. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Fresh off a block, the sock of Parrot32x is back... 108.209.237.15. I used the mass revert to remove all of the edits he/she created. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I took a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/87.152.187.231/Archive which was a request from a now blocked sockpuppet User:Njavallil. I wonder if you may have made a mistake in range blocking the IP, as I don't actually see a good reason for it although as I'm not an admin so can't see deleted contribs. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but despite the confusing list of IPs from Njavallil, there is only 2 IPs involved, '87.152.187.231' and '87.152.182.151'. And from what I can see, all that happened is 87.152.187.231 made this edit [8]. This may have come across as vandalism without any explaination but since one was offered in the edit summary I think you'd agree it's fair to say it's clear it was not vandalism, whether or not Njavallil agrees with the reasoning. (As it happens, I do agree with the reasoning and have reinstated the edit.)
Seeing this, 87.152.187.231 then queried why Njavallil had said their edit was vandalism (in 3 edits to achieve a version they were satisfied with). As it emerged on their talk page over time, Njavallil appears to often label edits as vandalism when they are not [9]. From what I can tell, Njavallil never explained why they labelled the edit as vandalism, or offered any explaination for their reversal and ended up removing most of the comments from their talk page, which they are of course entitled to do. (They had some funny user page policy which I never saw, I don't know if that offered some explaination.)
A while later, 87.152.182.151 came along and added back the original question and asked again for an explaination. (This was the sole edit.) Technically this could be considered a violation since Njavallil is entitled to remove most stuff from their talk page and it shouldn't be added back. But I don't know if it's completely unresonable to ask once again as the IP did (trying a 3rd time is pushing it) if you don't feel a satisfactory answer was given, even if your comment was removed since it's possible it was simply missed. Or if you're an IP perhaps the person thought you weren't likely to check back for an answer. In any case, no explaination was offered to 87 that they should not add back removed comment to someone's talk page so I don't think they should have been blocked for this.
In other words, it doesn't look like either IP did anything blockable or anything that bad. (I suspect Njavallil has a strange view of sockpuppetry being a sockpuppet themselves and views the IP simply changing as a violation although considering the time frame I suspect it wasn't even intentional.) If the IP was doing anything else, e.g. fooling around with one of Njavallil's deleted pages then as said, I can't see this. This is a minor issue to be sure, and the range block is nearly expired so may not even have time to lift it but just wanted to let you know.
Nil Einne ( talk) 05:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you get a checkuser done? User:Petescellar is also the same user, and I'm sure he has more socks. CTJF83 14:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
dear helloannyong,
please take a look at these 3 users [10], [11], [12]. all 3 accounts were created november 2011. all 3 are editing or rather pov-pushing on similar pages. i suspect that User:Shekhar.yaadav is the sockmaster but i'm not sure. how do i proceed?-- mustihussain 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello HA. Though there is nothing wrong with semiprotection, you might want to be aware of a discussion at User talk:J.delanoy#Jillian Michaels (personal trainer). You may have learned about the dispute on this article through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.247.28.30. I was hoping that User:Best O Fortuna would do something reasonable after being told about the BLP issue, but he did not respond to my last message. My comment here is an excuse for why I haven't filed at BLPN myself, but that must be the next step. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:50, 4 December 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for regularly helping to work through the sockpuppet cases. I know it is a fairly thankless, yet much needed, task. I appreciate how frequently I see your work on resolving the cases. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hey HelloAnnyong, if you have a minute, can you have a look at User_talk:Drmies#SC_Vaslui and see if I'm advising an editor correctly? Thanks, as always, Drmies ( talk) 14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Send me an email about this; I am thinking the block is not a good idea based on the checkuser. I just don't think there is enough to support a block and it just said "possible" for a match. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. NoHounding ( talk · contribs) is a new obvious sockpuppet of HaTikwa ( talk · contribs). His sole contributions consist of reinserting all the reference-spam that HaTikwa is so keen on (here and on just about every other wiki). Should Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa/Archive be reopened or can you simply block the new account? Cheers, Pichpich ( talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
He was banned for alleged copyright violations, not for spamming or self promo. Your acquaintance with all the details is prove enough that you are one of his hounders. Have fun. - NoHounding ( talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
"You"? Who are you talking to? NoHounding ( talk) 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Look, I really don't care about the backstory but I do care about the reference spam. These references are being reinserted blindly, systematically and without any indication that they are of substantial value. Perhaps even more problematic is that, as documented here by objective third-parties, library holdings for Mr. Kühntopf's work are so rare that linking to his book is basically linking to nowhere. It's hard to see how that benefits Wikipedia or in fact benefits anyone other than Mr. Kühntopf. Pichpich ( talk) 23:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Folks, this is my talk page, not a place to snipe at each other. If any of you think there's justification for an SPI case, feel free to open a case and we'll take a look. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I hate these templates, but I don't know how often you check your wiki e-mail :). Regards, AGK [ • 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. It's a shame that the above thread turned your talk page into a war zone and I'm sorry that I inadvertently set it all off. But my original question stands: what exactly is the procedure here? I'm not that familiar with the WP:SOCK process and I don't know if I should create a new case, bump the old one or go to you directly. Thanks, Pichpich ( talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. I'm not particularly familiar with the SPI process, however I just have a quick question about the case concerning User:Uthay6505 (SPI case here). I see that you have blocked and tagged the sockpuppet User:Rec006, but seeing as the sockpuppeteer was abusing the multiple accounts rule in an attempt to win a content-related consensus, is it not common procedure to block all accounts of the sockpuppeteer, including the main account? Thanks. Mato ( talk) 13:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
hello, please also see this [1]. I am not paranoid, the evidence supports Dighapet ( talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
First and foremost, your handle rocks. If you've never watched, you'll have to take my word that it's especially nifty. Also, thanks for handling the SPI I submitted. Wasn't sure whether to checkuser since they're equally likely a meaty variety. Again, my thanks. JFHJr ( ㊟) 01:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Should this [2] be reverted? Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 13:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey. So I've been testing out your tool. I've been getting a 500 Internal Server Error a couple of times while trying it out. Is this because of the tool, site, or my comp? Got another question. How far back does the tool go? Anyways, looks good so far. Elockid ( Talk) 03:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've found another problem. In the column which lists the page which has been edited, edits to (for example) Zoo Tycoon show up as Zoo Tycoon‎. OK, the extra "‎" is odd, but harmless. However, when edits are to pages in namespaces other than the mainspace, the full page name is not given, so that for example User talk:Denisarona shows up as Denisarona‎, making it look as though it is an edit to an article Denisarona. This obviously doesn't stop it being a useful tool, but you may like to see if you can clear it up. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sven Manguard Wha? 17:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think he is similar to user:NoHasbaraHere that was recently blocked.What do you think?Should I add him to the request.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw you closed this up today because the IP had gone quiet, so I thought I'd let you know that it's back and re-joining discussion on Talk:Least I Could Do and User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
A few days ago, you semi-protected Vassar College to help deter an unregistered editor who has persistently disrupted the article. The semi-protection ended yesterday and he or she has returned. Could you please semi-protect the article for a longer period so I can stop babysitting it? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 23:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
See User talk:Martijn Hoekstra#Unblock request from the list. Looks to be collateral from a recent block of 81.247.0.0/17 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)) that you put in place for Noisetier. Seems OK to create an account for them since they don't sound like Noisetier, from their email. This came in over unblock-en-l. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I really appriciate everything you do at WP:SPI. Also, sorry for being such a pain! The quacking was getting to me :) Ish dar ian 00:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC) |
I've just found another, active sock of User:12345678910callum: User:Reting23 seems to be following the exact same pattern. Do I need to open a new SPI case, or should I add this to the closed one?
Cheers, Yunshui ( talk) 14:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
HelloRohil ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Russavia Let's dialogue 21:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for the quick sock investigation on User:Heritage1 - he's mostly harmless, but generally plays by his own rules. Can you please undelete Alistair Smith, as Smith is a notable footballer according to our notability standards - I'll check it out to make sure it's appropriate. reading from WP:BAN.. "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content" - I'm happy to take that responsibility. Thanks. The-Pope ( talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Marcobadotti is unlikely to be related to both. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You marked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip126 ready for closure about 12 hours ago, but new, related behavior by another user has just occurred, and I'd like it examined as well before the case is archived. I've left a comment there with details. Thanks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Your candidate subpage has been created and transcluded to the above-noted location.
Please answer the standard questions and also keep watch for additional questions that may be posted by the community.
Thank you again for your offer to serve as a functionary. – xeno talk 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Im sorry to bother you but your are the most experienced administrator on these issues. Could you please take a look at this sockpuppet investigations concerning Hetoum I. Thanks for your efforts. Neftchi ( talk) 08:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that annoying IP Sock puppet case that seems ongoing. I thought for sure the editor had taken a vacation :) -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 06:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fellow editor, I noticed you bloced User:Pratipalsingh001 but his other id is still able to continue editing here. Thanks SH 07:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
May I ask why you put a warning about sock puppets on my page? I have been hassled by the queen of sox since day one here. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
What "evidence" is being referred to? I believe this is a Bad faith accusation. I am Really upset. Please see my response on the false accusation page. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there HelloAnnyong. Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet as per the SPI report results. Is there any way to block the account creation? Not only does this user master sockpuppets but he's insulting other users. This kind of insults should not be permitted. Tuscumbia ( talk) 13:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm perplexed by your decision on this SPI case. This was only the 2nd SPI I've raised and I'd like to understand. Abdulazeez,ani sockpuppets and gets an indefinite ban. Then (based on edit pattern and sig) comes back as Frank.diaz1994 and does it again. This time he only gets a 24h ban? Did you really intend for repeat offenders to get off more lightly? Cheers, Bazj ( talk) 07:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
User is asking for unblock, claiming it was a case of MEAT and not SOCK, and that they were unaware of the policy and will abide by it in the future. I'm inclined to AGF based on their request and the fact that there were no issues with disruptive editing or fake consensus biulding discussed at the SPI and unblock. Consulting you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi ... I'm not protesting your bottom line (as you saw, I thought wp:duck should be sufficient), but wouldn't a checkuser have the ability to indicate that the suspected master was also in the same city as the two IPs? Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 18:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Could you check whether User:Jorge Koli is related to the banned User:Mirwais Hotak a.k.a. User:Lagoo sab? I just have some reservations, looking at some of this user's editing patterns. Although this user did their first edit on the 11th of September, they seem to have an editing experience and know-how of Wikipedia that seems to precede the date. The latest sockpuppet of Lagoo sab, User:Mirwais Hotak, was blocked on the 2nd of September which is coincidentally 9 days before this user's first edit. Thanks and regards, Mar4d ( talk) 03:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Filed a report on suspicious accounts. Do you mind taking a look? Honestly, I lost track of what sock belongs to which puppeteer (could be Xebulon, Meowy or Aram-van), so I filed it under Hetoum I. Thank you! Tuscumbia ( talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not close the case yet, I intend to make an attempt to convince you. Hobartimus ( talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Add another to the long list of socks of Parrot32X.
Ugh! it never ends! -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I apparently opened a sockpuppet investigation on User:Fleetham and accidentally marked it as closed. Thanks for noticing, I have never done this before (obviously), please tell me if there is anything else I'm missing. Thanks, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you look again at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Octanis. I've added some clarifying info, which I accept should have been part of the initial review. The principal has since edit warred again on the Brian Crowley article, so issue not 'gone away'. Best. RashersTierney ( talk) 19:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I have asked Risker to look into the allegations you made about the DocOfSoc case, because it shows a continuing pattern that matches your response to the Yopienso case. Editors are innocent until proven otherwise. You cannot reverse the burden of proof and ask them to prove their innocence. And without good evidence showing that an SPI is supported, you cannot continue to accuse editors of being guilty. Viriditas ( talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie ⚔ 02:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it will be difficult to find a relationship between the suspected socks of Arun1paladin solely based on geolocation. It is evident even to an editor without the CheckUser facility, that he edited Wikipedia from Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, two distant locations of India, within a period of 3 weeks. Don't you think the account is shared among several people who push the same POV in selected articles? In the Singapore article also, this similarity was observed by an editor in March 2010. What is the action that can be taken against such activity? Astronomyinertia ( talk) 07:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJ CG. The IP just reappeared and left you a message: [5]. Whatever should be done is your call. Thanks, Biophys ( talk) 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!-- Pharos ( talk) 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Badly bashed here. Help! I am KLM3618, and I created the Jan Rogers Kniffen page. I created it for two reasons. 1) I thought there should be one for someone as prominent in retailing as Mr. Kniffen. 2) I wanted to see if I could effectively create and edit an encyclopedic entry in the electronic world. (I have only edited in the print world up to now, and the conversion is pretty difficult, but hopefully not impossible.) So, no, my account does not exist to "puff up" Jan Rogers Kniffen. It exists to try to get the darned page right. I asked catmandone to create an account and take a shot at getting the page right, since I was having such a hard time with it. And, yes, it has sort of become a cause celebre for me now, but only for the right reasons. Thanks for your help. KLM3618 ( talk) 13:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Annyong. This user has made an unblock request. I'm inclined to accept the explanation. The SPI archive is here. Let me know what you think. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Fyi, I was also wondering what went wrong with that page. As you can see from the edit summary I didn't touch any closing templates when creating the SPI. Anyhow, thanks for fixing the status. De728631 ( talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, HelloAnnyong. I must thank you kindly for making your range contribution tool. Thank you. It's been an immense value to me as I often used X!'s tool before it went down. I see above that you've been working on the tool, so I was wondering if you might be able to add a feature. X!'s tool had the ability to scroll back in the contributions (i.e. next 50 link), which allowed me to look far back in to the contribution history of a range. Would it be possible to add a feature like that at some point down the road? I often dig deep in to the contributions so I thought I would ask.
While I'm here, I'd like to say I'm sorry you weren't appointed CU in this last round of appointments. FWIW, I emailed in my support for you as you've been doing great work at SPI for a good long while and I thought you could make good use of the tools. Thanks again for the new tool. It's really generous of you to help the community like that. Best regards. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother you if I should be raising this elsewhere but you recently closed a case, now in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive, which was raised by User:AssociateAffiliate who had been subjected to abuse by Daft who now operates as User:KestevenBullet. You rightly stated that the KB account had been stale for several months but it is now active again. I've already raised the current problems at WP:ANI under the "Multiple issues" topic but I was wondering if you could reopen AssociateAffiliate's case given recent developments including personal attacks and edit warring. Please advise me of what I should do if you are unable to help personally. Thanks for your time. ---- Jack | talk page 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting rid to those unused references on Occupy Wall Street. I just learned how to clean those up today but had been waiting to also change the formatting so this problem can be behind us on that page as this will simply occur every time a reference is found to be incorrect, unreliable or does not support the claim etc. I mentioned this on the talk page and will reiterate my intention to do further cleanup of references.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind sending me a quick e-mail? Cheers. WilliamH ( talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little confused - if you've blocked Alis9 as a sockpuppet of Wran, shouldn't Wran be blocked too, for misusing multiple accounts? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Explained, hopefully. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This guy created another sockpuppet almost immediately. This character made the same exact change as all of his previous sockpuppets have, and also has a similar name. I don't know precisely where to bring this up, maybe you can tell me? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 06:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Fresh of a short vacation, the crazy IP who adds original research is back with this latest IP! "98.82.114.48" I used one of the tools you suggested (although it seems to not play well with Twinkle) and reverted all of the editors garbage edits. What's next? Wait till they IP-hop again and just continue to revert? I'm sorry I'm a bit punchy, but it seems like not much has happened to stop this (I fear there isn't much that can be done about it). Thanks for any help you can give on this matter. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 02:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
DeltaQuad's SPI Award | |
Given to members of the community who take SPI seriously and show constant dedication and uphold clerk and community standards. This medal represents the honour to be serving with you on this team. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello HelloAnnyong/Archive 15! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
I always forget to post this: the tool is very useful, but the limit of 30 edits is a severe handicap - normally the tool was used to shut down a range for extended time (a few hours emergency block can be done without it), and 30 is way too little for that. Any chance to accept the user input for the limit number (which is set up as I understand)? Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong, The user you blocked on the 13th of October for evading his ban has returned and it looks like he has resumed the same pattern of disruptive edits. His previous IP (Checkuser confirmed he was User:By78) has received a longer term ban with an expiry date of a year and I was wondering if something similar could be implemented to prevent this user from continuing with his disruptive edits. Thanks 184.77.229.73 ( talk) 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Why did you mark case closed, saying you blocked already. The new IPs are not blocked and one was used just today: 142.157.116.112 BollyJeff || talk 03:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The disruptive edits have begun again, but this time the IP looks way out of normal per the other socks of Parrot32X. The edits are the same, its just a different IP I suspect: 108.209.237.15. Ugh! -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 04:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Your range script is quite helpful. Any chance it could be enhanced to include a higher number of contributions, the way Soxred93's script did? In some cases 300 or more would be a better limit (or no limit, just keep on paging back). In the cases I usually look at, I only care about a month or so but there could be a lot of contribs in a month. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking konguboy's sock Dumeelbatcha. I had asked for a sleeper check but the CU was denied as the data has become stale. However he has created another account Ohlikutty ( talk · contribs). Proof is - this account has recreated the article The Great Wall of Tamil Nadu with the same content as Madukkarai wall (created by one of his socks and deleted as CSD G5). It also uses the File:Sellandiyamman.JPG uploaded to commons by another of Konguboy's socks and which has remained unused since. Please block this account.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 07:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
WilliamH ( talk) 03:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Is the hacking relevant now? lols..-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 08:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I got this on my talk page, which is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creepy Crawler/Archive#15 September 2011.
I'm not sure if it's the user socking or if they are friend acting as a meatpuppet and if it rises to the "don't engage, just block" criteria.
= J Greb ( talk) 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
See [7] - looks like he hasn't given up socking. I've protected this page but he's editing other articles with various IPs. Any suggestions as to what to do about it? Thanks Dougweller ( talk) 08:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Can you please take a look at these two under Hetoum I's SPI? Thank you! Tuscumbia ( talk) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A user requested a Sock Puppet investigation for two ip's that I use in which he/she gave no evidence or explanation of what I did, all he had was an accusation, yet you blocked both ip's for no reason. I request that you unblock those ip's as it is unnecessary and has no basis. This is the SPI page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacksoncw/Archive#Comments_by_other_users-- Jacksoncw ( talk) 01:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the check user request re: Destinero. I wasn't so sure with how it all worked when I first posted the sockpuppet investigation, and I figured I should have asked for a checkuser. So thanks! :) SarahStierch ( talk) 04:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
See here.
I thought the possible to likely association was with Proofplus, not with Ran kurosawa. Yet, the block of Technoratti was as a sock puppet of Ran kurosawa, as opposed to a block evasion by Proofplus. Did I miss something?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of those two! I'll keep an eye on the Star Wars canon article next week, tho, when the block on one of them expires... MikeWazowski ( talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
By this, do you mean this? It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Also - been meaning to ask, are you a fan of Arrested Development? pablo 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I would appreciate it if you look after this as the suspected sock is continuously removing all the stuff in the page and undoing edits without explanations. Secret of success Talk to me 12:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I read in the instructions while starting that evidence section should contain evidence only while the discussion should go in 'your own' section. So I reverted your headings change, hope its ok with you? or did I miss some format guideline? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Closed? What overlap? I guess atleast the IP should be blocked for the personal attacks on AVI and talk regardless of being a sock of the user or not. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain for me -- the closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iqinn -- does this confirm Iqinn used the open proxy? Or are open proxies always blocked?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend, our respected friend User:Manicjedi reported my self as Sock puppet as you can see my profile I have created good articles as well such as Halifax Community collage and few others as well and you may see my edit counts too and I honestly respect all the rules and principles of Wikipedia and we all are here to promote and make Wikipedia good place and useful for everyone around the world, but making it personal and reporting something which I have not done its not true, and its not appreciated as well, you all my friends here justify that, Is it correct as he gave the reason which was same IP so let me tell my brother sometimes I do editing from Internet Cafe, It might possible that some one edit it, anyways IN NUT SHELL reporting me as Sock puppet is not true therefore I would request you all to be cooperative please because its not about one individual its all about our own beloved WIKIPEDIA.-- Faizanalivarya ( talk) 07:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You participated in a third opinion request last year for the article Lion's share and agreed with me. Mzilikazi1939 is accusing you of being my associate, repeatedly making bad faith accusations against both of us. Since you are being mentioned in this dispute, I thought you should be aware of it. Talk:Lion's_share#Malicious_editing Dream Focus 13:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have not 'repeatedly made bad faith accusations' against you, HelloAnnyong. Dream Focus is trying to make mischief over a matter that he knows has been made the subject of a request to the Mediation Cabal. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course I opened this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/David Eppstein after they opened one against me, but this doesn't mean it can't be true. In my opinion David Eppstein=Ozob. It could be good to investigate, before to believe it couldn't be true only because they opened a case against me. Simply have a look to the history page of square pyramidal number. In my opionion it's not normal that when David Eppstein risks to violate the 3RR "magically" appears the user Ozob to revert a page. The SPI against me it is another business! Do I have to open another SPI?-- Romancio ( talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey HelloAnnyong, got a question. 69.66.209.3 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sock of User:Michael Paul Heart, aka Hermitstudy. I've blocked them already per DUCK, but I'd like to add them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hermitstudy/Archive, just for the record. Please tell me (one more time...) what to do. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, HelloAnnyong. You closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christiankkk, but it seems that the issue is not ended yet. A new SPA user:Franzberg started editing this article. I have suspicions that this account may also belong to user:Christiankkk; however, no disruptive editing yet. However, I think that it would be better to keep eye on this article due to massive SPA/COI issues and continues attempts to remove references about links to high officials of Ukraine. Yesterday when I discovered this article under creation process, started to improve it for submission and started to look references, I did not realized what kind of can of worms I just opened. Beagel ( talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning about my 'recent editing history at Lion's share'. It's not quite the ownership problem it may seem at first. Annielogue and I have an informal partnership and explain our changes of each other's edits on our respective talk pages. In the case of the first revert, you will have noticed that permission is given to change and I was about to reformat the image in question when I noticed that it wasn't free and also that the subject was of doubtful attribution. So I dropped a note on his/her talk page and also left the information that I had sought permission to use a less ambiguous illustration. The second revert was of the story he mentioned, which is from a different Aarne-Thompson grouping about which I again informed him. Leaving a message on the article's talk page would have been a more logical choice if it wasn't being patrolled at the moment by Dream Focus; I didn't want to fuel the dispute there any further.
It is kind of you to take an interest in the progress of the article. I hope by now that you have satisfied yourself that, beyond mentioning that folklore is not your specialism on the talk page, I have not been repeating defamatory accusations. I apologise for suspecting your good faith on the earlier occasion a year ago. Your abruptness then took me aback. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Fresh off a block, the sock of Parrot32x is back... 108.209.237.15. I used the mass revert to remove all of the edits he/she created. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I took a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/87.152.187.231/Archive which was a request from a now blocked sockpuppet User:Njavallil. I wonder if you may have made a mistake in range blocking the IP, as I don't actually see a good reason for it although as I'm not an admin so can't see deleted contribs. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but despite the confusing list of IPs from Njavallil, there is only 2 IPs involved, '87.152.187.231' and '87.152.182.151'. And from what I can see, all that happened is 87.152.187.231 made this edit [8]. This may have come across as vandalism without any explaination but since one was offered in the edit summary I think you'd agree it's fair to say it's clear it was not vandalism, whether or not Njavallil agrees with the reasoning. (As it happens, I do agree with the reasoning and have reinstated the edit.)
Seeing this, 87.152.187.231 then queried why Njavallil had said their edit was vandalism (in 3 edits to achieve a version they were satisfied with). As it emerged on their talk page over time, Njavallil appears to often label edits as vandalism when they are not [9]. From what I can tell, Njavallil never explained why they labelled the edit as vandalism, or offered any explaination for their reversal and ended up removing most of the comments from their talk page, which they are of course entitled to do. (They had some funny user page policy which I never saw, I don't know if that offered some explaination.)
A while later, 87.152.182.151 came along and added back the original question and asked again for an explaination. (This was the sole edit.) Technically this could be considered a violation since Njavallil is entitled to remove most stuff from their talk page and it shouldn't be added back. But I don't know if it's completely unresonable to ask once again as the IP did (trying a 3rd time is pushing it) if you don't feel a satisfactory answer was given, even if your comment was removed since it's possible it was simply missed. Or if you're an IP perhaps the person thought you weren't likely to check back for an answer. In any case, no explaination was offered to 87 that they should not add back removed comment to someone's talk page so I don't think they should have been blocked for this.
In other words, it doesn't look like either IP did anything blockable or anything that bad. (I suspect Njavallil has a strange view of sockpuppetry being a sockpuppet themselves and views the IP simply changing as a violation although considering the time frame I suspect it wasn't even intentional.) If the IP was doing anything else, e.g. fooling around with one of Njavallil's deleted pages then as said, I can't see this. This is a minor issue to be sure, and the range block is nearly expired so may not even have time to lift it but just wanted to let you know.
Nil Einne ( talk) 05:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you get a checkuser done? User:Petescellar is also the same user, and I'm sure he has more socks. CTJF83 14:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
dear helloannyong,
please take a look at these 3 users [10], [11], [12]. all 3 accounts were created november 2011. all 3 are editing or rather pov-pushing on similar pages. i suspect that User:Shekhar.yaadav is the sockmaster but i'm not sure. how do i proceed?-- mustihussain 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello HA. Though there is nothing wrong with semiprotection, you might want to be aware of a discussion at User talk:J.delanoy#Jillian Michaels (personal trainer). You may have learned about the dispute on this article through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.247.28.30. I was hoping that User:Best O Fortuna would do something reasonable after being told about the BLP issue, but he did not respond to my last message. My comment here is an excuse for why I haven't filed at BLPN myself, but that must be the next step. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 22:50, 4 December 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |