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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
please take a look at this account [1]. smells like iamtrhino. compare these two diffs: [2], [3]. or these two: [4], [5]-- mustihussain 20:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have blocked both User:Blue-bottle and User:Portuguese Man o' War with a block reason of Abusing multiple accounts. I can find no evidence of abuse, so would you be kind enough, please, to explain the abuse that caused you to block these accounts? I can see that the policy states:
Was there an overlap where two accounts were used to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or any of the other things mentioned? I'm having difficulty in seeing what made you block two apparently abandoned accounts whose contributions were wholly constructive. Thanks in advance, -- RexxS ( talk) 00:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
For some reason I had to do a lot of SPI reports recently, and I realised that some things are not completely clear to me as I got some checking rejected that I think was similar to cases when it was accepted in the past, sometimes even after filing an SPI request without checking. Most importantly, the rules for (not) connecting named accounts to dynamic IPs with a non-empty contribution history who are clearly not cases of accidental logged-out editing seem to have changed, or maybe I never understood them. Which options should I consider in such cases in the future?
Maybe it also makes a difference if part of the information has already been public, such as when connecting an editor of obvious nationality to a dynamic IP in the country's capital?
Maybe the guidance at WP:SPI should also be clarified. At the moment it seems to speak only about the exposure of IPs that were not reported due to a relevant edit history. Hans Adler 10:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I have replied and provided clarifications explaining the validity of the case in this SPI case. Salvidrim! 01:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong, would you take a look at this discussion and block WölffReik ( talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption? You were involved with this user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik/Archive. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 23:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have received the attack from Mr.choppers here and here. Please warn to Mr.choppers. Moreover, Mr.choppers is doing obstinately incomprehensible edit. It seems that Mr.choppers thought that two fire trucks were introduced. Mr.choppers should accept and apologize for Mr.choppers mistake. DigitalShop78 ( talk) 04:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
— Commander (Ping me) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Annoyong, there has been a lot of sock-puppets at Iraqi Turkmens. I believe that User:MamRostam03 now seems to have created a new user name "User:KakaSur" in order to continue disrupting the article. Turco85 ( Talk) 15:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Concerning this: newbie - User talk:186.73.132.154 seems to actually be this editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus/Archive, apparently acting as a new account, please check into this. Thank you... Modernist ( talk) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Could you please take a look at two reports on two suspicious accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I? Much appreciated. Tuscumbia ( talk) 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
[6] Thanks for combining those. I'm sorry, I didn't notice the SPI until after reporting the IP via Twinkle, because I worked out who it User:198.234.45.207 was separately from the deleted articles (after eir request on my talk), and didn't see the report/block (as it was range-block). Thanks again, Chzz ► 02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could look into a new issue that seems to be cropping up here The incident was moved to the archive, but remains unresolved. I believe the IP in question has not edited in awhile, which may be why the case was archived, that or no action was taken. I'm not sure where to go from here, however I wish some action could have been taken before the case was archived. Any thoughts? -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
In the complaint against the Skeptics organization, you indicated that the user accounts identified in the complaint did not exist. On that basis you closed the complaint and recommended that other admins delete it.
But they do exist. So I added links in the complaint pointing to the talk pages of the accounts.
Please let me know if that clarifies.
Many thanks for your time and consideration on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind also blocking IP 83.241.234.4? He's the one giving us the most headache. Thanks, -- Eisfbnore talk 08:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Need some help and guidance here. Reference to this case. As I predicted 101 Luftballons, as a clear sockpuppet of the complex, has returned and committed the same international vandalism as was committed in January on October 26, 2011 in: es, hif, ja, simple, and sv. I stumbled on this by accident and have corrected it where possible, but what can we do to prevent a repeat here? -- W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.137.152.169/Archive
I simply have variable IP, this is not under my control, it automatically switches on computer startup, reboot or longer inactivity. I can't help it. I am playing strictly to the rules, as you can see from my edits. See Alprazolam, Temazepam and many others. 70.137.129.225 ( talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at wp:Sockpuppet investigations/41.130.91.244. Shrike ( talk) 09:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm frustrated by your ruling because I'm convinced they are the same and I thought the extensive evidence I provided was strong—and it seemed like you did too when you asked for checkuser. Your comment "I mean yes, they do have a lot of articles in common, but there's a lot of articles that one account edited that the other did not." makes me think you did not consider all the evidence. In fact, I mentioned this pattern as support for Otto being a single purpose account, which would support it being a sock. Would you please consider asking other clerks to comment instead of assuming meaning from their silence? I think it's likely that the reason for inactivity is the amount of evidence. I understand that clerks must be busy and do not want to spend much time on something like this, but this editor has driven away editors from an important topic (plastic surgery) that does not have much activity to begin with.-- Taylornate ( talk) 18:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me about that... I didn't realize that I put it down incorrectly and am about to change it right now. Van Gulik ( talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sierra McCormick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The-Pope ( talk) 16:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Why was the entry for Bahamas Habitat deleted?
Stephen W. Merritt Treasurer Bahamas Habitat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.11.142 ( talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The case hasn't been closed yet, but 79.180.108.70 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same guy.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I marked the a sockpuppet empty category for deletion here . This is nothing against you personally, but I really don't agree with that template being used because its empty and a CheckUser confirmed these suspected sockpuppets into confirmed. If you don't agree with me you can undo the change. Thank you for the help! -- Katarighe ( talk) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I have a request; I'm interested in helping out in the administrative tasks on wikipedia, and in particular I'd like to help with clerking at SPI. I don't have a lot of experience, but I'm a fast learner and would really enjoy helping out in the long run. I noticed that you're one of the current clerks and was wondering if you'd consider taking me on as a trainee? Just for the record, I've also asked User:Spitfire. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 05:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to check with you on the above referenced SPI. While you blocked the puppet, the master remains free to edit, lacking even a notification on his profile that he violated the sockpuppet policy. Was the decision not to block the master intentional? Or merely an oversight? If intentional, can you let me know what your thoughts are on this? I appreciate your help. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 07:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a pro-NYC vandal on the San Francisco Chinatown who's been making changes and re-igniting SF vs. NYC Chinatown war (i.e. SF one of the largest, NYC THE LARGEST). It looks like it might be Thmc1, as user is not logged in & making edits w/IP address. WOULD LIKE TO REWUEST YOU INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION. He is citing biased magazine articles as his sources, even though the sources citing the SF Chinatown page as largest are factually researched from the US Census Bureau(i.e. city-data.com, which has data for all communities in the US). His other pro-NY edits to the SF Chinatown page are also factually incorrect, and he's even assusing other editors undoing his edits of bing vandals. Please expedite this mater ASAP.
Update: I forgot to mention that the IP address of the user making the edits is 96.242.217.91. After looking throuhg Thmc1's block log I found that this is the very same IP that an investigation was opened on sometime ago. So, I guess I'm not the only here who thinks it might be Thmc1 trying to sneak his way back onto WiKi. I WOULD ALSO ADVISE THAT YOU PLACE A SPECIAL LOCK ON the Chinatown, San Francisco page so that only authorized can make edits, and the changes take effect after being checked upon by other users.
HanJinwu ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC).
Hello Annyong,
Another obvious HOOTmag/Bluesurfers sock [7], User:Purpleflights. Note the username and single-purposeness on the account, namely Developed country. Athenean ( talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Kiftaan is Lagoo sab. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1#23 December 2011. Mar4d ( talk) 04:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
here is yet another sock User:ShanuAvtararit. i couldn't file a report as the sock investigation page of iamthrino is protected.-- altetendekrabbe 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, since you are the admin who responded to this case can you take a look at the comments that were placed there after your actioning of the case. Some editor, who I've never interacted with, is alleging me to be a sock of some editor I don't know based on the fact that I'm getting the article Pakistan formally peer reviewed (along with 2 other editors) to get it back to FA and making major contributions to it. He has recently vandalized my user page by adding a sockpuppet tag to it and has done the same to many others as per his contributions (he has also vandalized the mentioned SPI page and placed his own decisions in the conclusion section). Per his comments, any Pakistani who edits Pakistan related pages is a sock. The areas of my interest are Pakistan related articles and I've edited all in a legit way. Although I don't know this editor but my edits are ten times that of his and the way he seems to know all the wiki policies, he seems a sleeper/sock himself. He further represents (purposely) the on wiki (and open to be viewed by the community) constructive collaboration between me and Mar4d as meat-puppetry. I'll report him at WP:AVI if he adds the tag again, but the comments about me at the SPI to which I'm unrelated call for a Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. Thanks. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but it was User:Shekhar.yaadav that misled me, I just copied that name. Dougweller ( talk) 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I left an explanation at the case page, and I ask you please to reconsider your decition. Best regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 04:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Added additional comments here. Calabe 1992 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to the
National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my
stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic· t 01:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
Hi! Care to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ip claiming to be LiteralKa? Cheers! -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poeticbent/Archive, what was it, exactly, that Cezary Barylka was blocked for? Pre-emtpive clarification: if he was blocked for disruption from another account, could you clearly explain what account, and what disruption? Thanks. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I invite you to another SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AramaeanSyriac. Shmayo ( talk) 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your efforts on SPI pages, although I do hope our friend will stop in 2012. History2007 ( talk) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks, on more flimsy evidence, such as use of files contributed at wiki commons, and their mutual puppeteering activities, that User:Uobquetta may be a new account of the banned sockpuppeteer User:Pd1 uob. Their commons contribs are: Pd1_uob and Uobquetta. I can't see the deleted contibutions of Uobquetta on en wiki to confirm this suspicion. I'd have added this to the SPI but it's now closed. Advice? Thanks. Bazj ( talk) 12:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! When you have a few minutes, please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish#Help Needed. Something's not quite right, but I'm at a loss to make sense of it all. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong, you recently closed this SPI investigation. It's a strange situation, but I think you might have overlooked the point here by excusing the behavior of Basil Rock. It wasn't just a username issue. This is a person who was blocked for their username, so they changed usernames, then separately recreated the blocked username and edited with both accounts simultaneously. How is this not the very definition of sock puppetry? Can you take another look at it? Thanks! -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 04:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask two questions in relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HenryVIIIyes. First, in a few SPI cases that I think I remember from the past, there was a link to the archive on the page. I see the link in the history (you recently archived it), but should the link be on the page? Second, is there a formal procedure for reporting follow-up DUCK socks? I could go to the talk page of an admin who blocked one of the previous socks, but I'm wondering if there is some place I cannot find where I am supposed to report things like this obvious new sock: JohnNotunique ( talk · contribs). WP:SPI seems overkill. Thanks. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the abusive user in Atlanta is editing with a new sockpuppet Keizers ( talk) 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
User:220.255.1.141 this was very recent (a few hours ago) -- it is what spurred the SPI. Thanks. elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
As I have already notified your fellow clerk, there has been no progress in this sockpuppet investigation for a couple of days and it has become a distraction from other more serious issues I'm dealing with. Could you please take a look? Thanks.-- Andriabenia ( talk) 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Per this: if it is SRQ (which I am utterly convinced it is), then the only real conflict between the banned editor vs. either of the unbanned "Doc" editors is why SRQ cannot understand why they were banned to begin with. As usual, they are ferreted out because of their harassment of other users and general incompetence as an editor on a collaborative project. The more I look at this new account's edits, the more diffs I can provide. Doc talk 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've added a ton more evidence to the SPI, and I have looked very hard to exclude SRQ as being Lhb1239, as I really would hate to be wrong about something like this. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that these accounts are operated by the same user - none. Some of the most obvious points:
I could go on for awhile, but hopefully you can see that there is no other logical conclusion as to who this actually is. The behavior never changes, only the account names. There is no overlap between any of the confirmed or suspected socks of SRQ that I can find. DocOfSoc did not ask to be followed around and reverted by this banned editor, and neither did the others who are being revealed as having extremely unpleasant discourse with this person, so the escalation is completely on the banned editor's part. I'm sure the CU evidence on SRQ is stale, we know she hops around on wireless IPs and the like, and we already have Lhb1239 admitting that they are from the northern Puget Sound area of Washington. The reason she hasn't even responded to the SPI report so far when she has been so diligent about maintaining "her" talk page is because she knows she has been busted. I know I'd be furious if someone accused me of being a sock when I really wasn't - wouldn't most? Whether another clerk takes up your offer to chime in, or if it takes a month to close it: it is her. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the most recent activity was 2011-12-16 -- just three weeks ago. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
Having read your message, I looked through all the socks of Satt 2. I decided to collapse me comments into a box and add two further comments, after looking at all the contributions of the socks. Andriabenia thinks they can remove my collapse boxes and has been edit warring over that. Please could you advise them that they have no right to tamper with my edits in this way. Thanks. Mathsci ( talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I wish to display my evidence in a readable way. In this case it was only HelloAnnyong's comment today that made me aware of how many very recent sockpuppets of Satt 2 there have been. I spent over 1 1/2 hours reviewing the editing of all the listed sockpuppets accounts and that made me decide on a format change. I have not removed any content (I could if I wished) and it's easy enough to read the evidence. I should not have been placed in the position where I have no control over what I add, when it is within the normal editing framework. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
is truly great, but 50 edits say almost nothing and don't allow to set any reasonable time for a block. If possible, please extend it to at least 200. Pagination is fine. Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello HelloAnnyong - Happy New Year. I noticed this SPI and was wondering if it might be better to leave it open for a full checkuser, as there are other accounts that appear similar to me (edit similar AFDs). 7 08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea how you'd think Eric444 was related to this. Eric444 is a good faith contributor who's been here since 2007. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see. [28] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The "outing" IP is back, at another IP address. Please see [29] and [30]. I guess you need to block that one too, and hide those edit summaries. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have an investigation open where a username and an IP are the chief concern. I listed potential older socks to reference a pattern (and because the form was set up that way), however it made it more difficult to "keep it simple." Is there anyway to do a CheckUser if the master is using the same anonymous IP? What about for potential "sleepers"? And is there anything than can be done to speed this process along? Thanks so much. ThomasC.Wolfe ( talk) 06:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for not listing the sockmaster; I was concerned about outing. I've now listed the sockmaster and some supporting evidence; but, unfortunately, the page is still under OccamTheRazor (the alleged sockpuppet) and not PaulTheOctopus (the alleged sockmaster). I would have corrected the template, but I've never filed such a report before and I did not want to break any more conventions than I probably already have. Cumulant ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
You closed and archived an SPI case five hours after it was submitted on August 25, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AceD/Archive, and you noted, "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." See also this related discussion from your talk page. I find it a little ironic that Computer Guy 2 ( talk · contribs) would file an SPI, and display his understanding of sockpuppet policy on your talk page, just one day after creating a sockpuppet of his own: Solo I Fatti ( talk · contribs)
I'm not asking for your opinion on whether socking is occurring; I'm already treating that as obvious fact. The 100% overlap in edited articles between these two SPA accounts; the frequent signing of comments by both accounts with "In Good Faith"; identical login times and periods of no editing, etc. -- it passes the duck test with flying colors, and makes the filing of an SPI report a mere formality. I would, however, like your input on two things:
Fun stuff. Your input, before I proceed, would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
In less than a day, Ukboxen is back as 109.123.93.228 and is still undoing all of my edits.
Is there anyway to stop him from making more and more IPs? -- TheShadowCrow ( talk) 15:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
— Commander (Ping me) 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Padmal has come back after a long time, and we are yet to welcome him with a bouquet. Wp:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. Please accept the honour of presenting it to him. ;) X.One SOS 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to my would-be nemesis, SRQ, we got off on the wrong foot. I sincerely hope we can now have a fresh start. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hello lol (sorry couldn't resist...sure you've seen that a million times) I am one of the many editors who watch and contribute to Circumcision and noticed you as the last admin who blocked User talk:Joe Circus. I have no issue with the block as he is clearly a puppet master but wish to make sure other users are not summarily blocked without proper compelling evidence. I'm referring to this proxy block by user:Kanonkas and subsequent label by user:jayjg. It's also true that the IP has not requested an unblock and may very well be a sock of Joe Circus but I've seen no evidence on the sock and open proxy noticeboards. I also find it curious that Kanonkas has not edited since April of last year and only 4 edits at that. What brought him out of retirement to block an open proxy and why was there no mention of this being a sock of Joe Circus? I have queried [31] Kanonkas to no avail and find communication with Jayjg pointless. I was hoping you could look into the matter or point me in the right direction or if I'm being paranoid please tell me to bugger off and I shall. Garycompugeek ( talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Not sure if Hetoum I and Xebulon are one, but please look into this new evidence. Thank you! Tuscumbia ( talk) 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the Sock case I filed earlier that you closed, it would appear that the user(s) made an account ( The Witer 20) and screwed around with my user page. While I tend to be understanding, I wasn't born yesterday and it doesn't seem like much of a coincidence. If you could look into this I'd appreciate it. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you look at Fun27 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), clearly another sock. Mt king (edits) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
hey its not my speculation its a fact, what do you know, have you even seen the show, what do you do just look around wikipedia and revert peoples knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWarear ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong (I'm a fan of Arrested Development too),
I thought I'd get in touch with you because you protected the Sri Vikrama Rajansinha article. Unfortunately you have protected a version of the article that is politically motivated and engages in historical revisionism (Tamilian101 is attempted to claim that Kandy was a Tamilian kingdom cf. the recent conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka). I have provided information below to substantiate my claims. Please either revert the article to a version prior to the edit war or unprotect it until a more neutral version emerges.
There seems to be an unconstructive edit war over the name of this article. I think it's time the matter was resolved by an administrator. The article was previously entitled, "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy". "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" was the most common name by which the last king was known as per both Sri Lankan and European records, a perusal of books on the Kanydan period will confirm this. Yes, "Sri" is an honorific prefix, but it is also the most common name by which he was known. The prefix "Mother" appears in the wikipedia entry on "Mother Teresa", this is in accordance with MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included". Secondly, Tamilian101 has been attempting to add "Prince Kannusamy" to the king's name. Pre-coronation titles should appear in the article, but certainly not in the title of the article. Addressing a king by the lower title, "prince", is incorrect and disrespectful. The article on Queen Elizabeth does have "Princess Elizabeth" appended the the article's title for this reason. Regardless of your politics, historical revisionism is unhelpful. Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, a member of the Madurai royal family, chose the name "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" upon his coronation (aged 18), and that is the most common name by which he was known throughout his life.
Furthermore, adding the name of the king in three separate languages on the English Language version of wikipedia clutters up the page with information that it largely uninformative for the vast majority of readers. It should be noted that Sri Lanka's inhabitants at the time also included Burghers and Moors (who spoke Dutch and Arabic among other languages), listing his names in all these languages is unnecessary clutter. This is why Queen Elizabeth's name does not appear in Welsh, Gaelic or any other language on the wikipedia entry, because it is uninformative on an English language encyclopedia and adds unnecessary clutter. I have added this information the article's and Tamilian101's talk page in the hope that he would see reason, but it is clear that he is trying to engage in politically motivated historical revisionism. I stated that adding "Prince Kannusamy" (a previous and more junior title) before the actual name of the king on the image and his completely unnecessary (we don't see Princess Elizabeth preceding "Queen Elizabeth II" on her wiki entry). My revisions have all been reverted without the reasons being addressed on the talk page.
This is an important article on one of the most interesting periods of Sri Lankan history, so please let's work together to make it more informative an accessible without quibbling over unconstructive modifications. If you have the time, I would really appreciate your input on how to go about getting the article back to into it's former, more accurate, version.
Thanks 124.148.180.226 ( talk) 06:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Computer_Guy_2/Archive
The investigation posting states, "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below." However, the investigation posting was archived before this editor was allowed to post and comment or discuss. I request permission to post my explanation to the archived investigation. Computer Guy 2 ( talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys. As long as we're considering revisiting this SPI so as to add more documentation, which I assume would include this already attempted claim of an "unintentional mistake", then I guess I should resume typing up the evidence I've collected -- most of which never made it into the preliminary filing of that report, by the way, since I figured the case was closed and piling on more evidence wasn't necessary. There are some additional diffs that indicate intentional, not unintentional, deception; then there's my discussions with Fatti where I excuse his behavior as that of a new, inexperienced editor with just 2-dozen edits ... and he let me believe that; and the time I explained that I posted a 3RR-warning template on his talk page because he had never been warned before ... he never corrected me (I see now you've received warning templates before on this account). There's more, some of which may have to be confidentially emailed to an Admin, as it includes information that could be used to identify future socking. Also, you were never "denied the opportunity" to respond to the actions taken; the same notice that informed you of your block also informed you about how to respond if you thought there was an error -- days before the case was archived. In equally good faith, Xenophrenic ( talk) 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like you to reconsider the close of this investigation with no action taken. You say "it really does just seem like meat puppetry" as if meat puppetry is somehow not as bad as sock puppetry. Per WP:MEAT, "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sock puppets." And, yes, the article is now protected from editing thanks to edit warring, but the fact of the matter is that it would not need to be if even one of these meat puppeting editors were blocked. The version of the article that got locked was the one they put there without consensus. They are gaming the system, and it is working. Considering that we need to get agreement before the article can be unlocked, and we never will get agreement with those two accounts wanting to make such drastic changes, the page may be locked in the non-consensus version forever at this rate. I also am starting to wonder if I should have asked for a full sock puppet investigation. I only did the meat puppet one because it was clearly a WP:DUCK meat puppet and I thought it would end up with the same actions taken as sock puppeting, per the line from the policy I quoted above. With the article's history of frequent sock puppets as well as some similarities between these editors and old, now banned editors, I think it's very possible it is also the same person. DreamGuy ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That same "outing" IP has done the same thing after the block ended: [32]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Austereraj is the master in a case that you recently dealt with and which is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Austereraj/Archive. The master has just returned with another crappy contribution pushing his name without good cause or sourcing. Is there a long-term solution? This type of behaviour has been going on for ages now. - Sitush ( talk) 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Would you take a look at Grant Cardone and issue whatever Scientology-related notices you see fit, if any? Both editors would appear to come within Remedy 5.1. Haven't talked for awhile, hope you are fine. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. It looks as though this user is still socking to evade their ban (see, in particular, this edit summary ( quack, quack?)) and edit warring on the Resident Evil (video game) article, as well as making personal remarks (though not attacks) against User:OsirisV. I'm happy to re-open the sock case if you feel it's necessary, but I thought it might be somewhat more expedient to bring it to your attention. Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 07:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi I've left a note at the spi but basicly what I'm after is just advice. The history has involved previous blocks for socking where the unblock request said he wasnt to use other accounts. I'm not wanting you to do anything else but I'd like to know when it's appropriate to run a check user and when not just for future if it happened again would it then be or does there need to be a lot of history. Just would like to know for the future not just for this but anything. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Did I post this correctly- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Computer_Guy_2 . I am wondering since it hasn't been reviewed, and thought maybe it was because I did not ask for a Checkuser (didn't think it was required). Thanks in advance AceD ( talk) 01:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for addressing the puppets at this investigation. Query -- you didn't block the sockmaster Jigsaw, although you blocked his puppet. They worked in tandem at one of the AfDs at issue (one !voting at the Bahram AfD, the other extending the Bahram AfD unilaterally as an independent editor, presumably to give the master more time to garner support). I would have thought that the master (Jigsaw) would warrant a block for that, and as that impacts the AfD !vote, I thought I would contact you in that regard. Many thanks for your consideration. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you couldn't do anything else in closing this but from my personal point of view it's less than satisfactory. You wrote "I don't know if it's Dingle or not". Well, I do know, and it isn't, and I said so. FL launched this SPI because they didn't like my edits to Christian Concern, and even in the SPI report FL admits that "I'd be happy to withdraw this SPI". So now I'm left with this vague insinuation hanging over me, which CU would have resolved. Not happy. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 07:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You just G5'd the article Alexander Kačaniklić created by a blocked sock. Would it be possible for you to copypaste the latest revision to my userspace, as the subject is notable, and I'd like a basis from which to re-create a properly sourced clean version. AFAIK, there wasn't any copyvio material left in it. Thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 15:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Herro prease. It looks like bot updates at SPI might have stopped until next week(?!). Please tell me I'm wrong. I realize there's a backlog, and of course I'll wait my turn for the SPI I posted. I didn't know if the post would be worthwhile in a week, though. Any advice? Should I list manually? Cheers! JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think WP:ROPE is a reasonable approach. I'm watching the articles closely, and reverting / NPOVing any promotional-sounding material. So far, Joyceprof has been dropping in a bit of that, but has mainly been making good edits. Even the promotional-sounding stuff is starting to contain solid sources, so I've been able to rewrite it into something more neutral and factual.
I should add that the actions of these editors, in their latest incarnation, have drastically improved the Malegapuru William Makgoba article, which had devolved into a bit of an attack page full of concerning violations of WP:BIO. I think there's hope yet. - Kieran ( talk) 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Just curious, since I'm unfamiliar with this process - I see that you've blocked Nexia asx as a confirmed sock of 8digits. The sock was used to deliberately circumvent 8digit's 3RR block and edit the article in question. As far as I can see, no action has been taken to either extend the block of 8digits or warn him/her about what happened. Is that standard procedure, or is something still to come? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Certifiedallergist, check the background of the added IPs and reply to the suggestions for a block or topic ban for Certifiedallergist. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please have a look at this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon? I would appreciate your opinion, since you were involved in this case before. Regards, Grand master 19:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm back on your talk page, so you know what that means: [33], [34].
I notice something slightly different this time. The IP only refers to Neurorel, not Edgeform. It seems to me that it makes zero sense that either Neurorel or Edgeform would do this. Rather, it looks like the IP realizes that Edgeform has been blocked and now is pushing to have Neurorel blocked. Of course the SPI found that they all geolocate together, and there is clearly a pattern of interest in the same subjects, but I really think that this behavioral pattern is only consistent with someone other than Neurorel or Edgeform trying to get those accounts blocked, out of some odd agenda growing out of the research areas (probably autism) associated with that San Diego lab. On this basis, I think that the SPI decision to block Edgeform needs to be re-assessed. What do you think of an unblock? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear HelloAnnyong,
My name is Jonathan Obar
user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community
HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalaua. Unfortunately it looks like this idiot has immediately registered a new account Ranuralip ( talk · contribs). What to do about this? Should I re-open the existing SPI, or wait for it to be archived then open a new one? Or will you simply block him/her? Thanks in advance. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Some days I reported an IP used by Mackemfixer at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mackemfixer. You closed the case and block the IP. Now we have Argcontrib, a new user that continues things right were the IP left them (clearly, a block evasion), but the SPI is not archived yet. How do I report it then? Should I wait for the archive and report again then, add the new info to the page and change the status back to open, generate a new page at "Mackemfixer (second)" or something like that), or just tell you here? Cambalachero ( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not Mackemfixer. Please look into this. Argcontrib ( talk) 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you have a look at User talk:Savatage Gutter Ballet when you have time? They are proclaiming their innocence. The edits themselves don't appear incriminating, although I have no idea what checkuser may have revealed. Thanks. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 04:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Cammyayrutd, User:Cammy ayr utd1910 & User:Cammyaufc1910 There is no evidence of disruption other than recreating a deleted article on a new account but seems highly likely with editing of Ayr United article and similar names they are the same account. Others appear stale I'm assuming good faith that maybe he was looked out of the other accounts but would like to know if it should be reported fully or if there is anything i should be using to advice him. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering if it is normal for an indefblocked username to still be manipulating his talk page under his username that is indefblocked. This makes me think such a user can also do this elsewhere. Can you check it or something? No need to get back to me at all- just dropping you a line since you indefblocked this guy.-- Djathink imacowboy 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I am unsure where is the appropriate page for comment.
I submitted the case for investigation after checking the history of the Anglo-Indian when concerns were raised that two users had entered the debate. During this I noticed the evidence that I presented. I decided to refer the issue to those with more experience to resolve. I bear no emnity toward HonestopL. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thankyou. Romper ( talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey HelloAnnyong, I just blocked IP 91.140.87.114. Can you figure out a range block? Or should I just semi-protect their favorite targets? Drmies ( talk) 00:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I need a help from an admin. There was a long editwarring over an article, and almost all participants of it were confirmed as sockpuppets of a sockmaster. And there is a user (who I'm not sure is a sockpuppet) but who permanently supports all that sockpuppets, receives advice from them, supports their editwarring with an agressive manner and oftenly attacks me any time backing that sockpuppets (I collected a lot of evidence). Are there any rules of Wikipedia regulating such a behaviour when a confirmed user permanently supports a sockmaster? Thank you in advance! Gazifikator ( talk) 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, HelloAnnyong! You might already be aware of this, but a checkuser has confirmed that Gazifikator is a sockmaster of several accounts, editing the article on Toumanova. Please, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator/Archive#29 December 2011. Best regards, Antique Rose — Drop me a line 11:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You recently blocked 218.250.159.25 based on discussions here. As the sockmaster's data is stale, the past few blocks have largely been on behavioural grounds. (Am I reading this right?) Is it customary on Wikipedia to do blocks like this, even when the data is so old? (The IP also claims not be Instantnood in this diff.)
In my opinion, the problem with IP editors from Hong Kong participating in Taiwan-related discussions (that's what I check, though I understand there have also been issues with Hong Kong-related discussions) is the large amount of drive-by sock/meatpuppets, not a single IP editor. I find 218.250.159.25 somewhat difficult to work with and exhibiting a bit of WP:IDHT, but if they are to be blocked, shouldn't it be done for disruption and after warnings?
I find this to be particularly important, because there has been concerns (on the SPI page, for example) that some editors are using SPIs on Instantnood to silence those they disagree with. I do wish there was a better way to deal with all the socking and meatpuppeting surrounding the contentious issue, but blocking IP editors who aren't obviously socking and whose behaviour on its own does not rise to the level of being blockable doesn't seem to be the solution... :/
If you had other considerations for blocking, would you mind sharing them? Thanks. wctaiwan ( talk) 05:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Any reason not to block Kalyan97? He's only here to promote someone who might even be himself. Dougweller ( talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
One thing to note: User:A Pocket Full of Sunshine isn't blocked. Just thought I'd mention that Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to inquire why you have reverted the listing I posted recently for our new static code analysis tool? Is there something in post content that is inappropriate, or do you feel the product does not meet the criteria to be listed with the other tools currently on that list? Would it help to create a Wiki page for the product and link indirectly to it?
Just wanted to clarify so that we can share what we believe to be a valuable new, credible, real product in this space as well. Any advice to pass required editting restrictions would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgnazdowsky ( talk • contribs) 16:19, February 25, 2012
On the Nocrowx investigation - It is more about JMRH6 now and I have provided more evidence - however, you have put in a archive request. Please can you look it over again, if you have the time. Rain the 1 18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:AN#Requesting an unblock on another user's behalf. Any comments you'd like to make there would be welcome. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
[43] "This is getting very old very quickly." What would you propose I do? I decided to give up on the articles altogether, leaving them to the wolves, rather than continue any pretense of helping Wikipedia. Should I just start blocking people? Arbcom has shown itself to be toothless. The wider community has shown itself not to care. You are the most recent administrative contact I've had with this, and the best you could offer was that it was "getting old". You have no idea how much I agree with you. So, please, tell me, what should I do? -- Golbez ( talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
"198.105.46.41 has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Really? Did you check? Cherylbarksdale ( talk) 03:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, wanted to get your attention on this as you were the original clerking admin on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual. I'm pretty confident User:FavorLaw is a sock of this disruptive editor, and suspicious of the recently inactive account User:Grimso5 as well. User:Zenithfel suspects User:ChronicalUsual and his socks are themselves socks of an original editor who made a habit of editing disruptively on Libya content, User:FreemanSA, but I'm not confident enough to fully endorse that view at this moment. Anyway, thought you might want to take a look as you handled the previous (inconclusive) cases. Cheers. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to check, did I file this report ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood) correctly? It didn't seem to appear on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations after I filed it. John Smith's ( talk) 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
ChronicalUsual uses a proxy server to avoid the account creation/ip ban, so i don't think we heard the end of his socks. Sopher99 ( talk) 02:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
How do you (checkusers) determine if an IP is a school or other public computer? I was looking at the Contribution list for an IP...and it appears to be all vandalism, going back about 2 years. The style of vandalism (most often "<person's name> is <stupid insult>" strongly suggests, to me, either an elementary or junior high school. Is determining the likely owner of what appears to be a static IP just a matter of feel, or are there some tools that either CU's or regular users can do? The vandalism from this IP is typically 1-10 edits in one session, with gaps of 1 or more months in between sessions. I don't see any constructive edits among the edits. Thus, if we have any reason to believe this is a school, it seems like escalating schoolblocks may be appropriate. Thanks for your help. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I just re-opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akhunbaba due to another account adding the same material (2 different talk pages, and the new account's user page). All I did was change the SPI case status template from closed to open, so I'm not sure if that properly re-lists it or not. Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Whoever is using the Edit Summaries to attack me is now attacking Tryptofish as well. I appreciate what you have done to protect this article. I believe the article has improved with the work I have done. It must be a major headache for you to deal with a very determined person who has nothing to contribute but confusion. Neurorel ( talk) 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel
Thanks, both of you, for letting me know. And there's another one, at The Science Network [44], so you'll need to blank that edit summary too. By the way, just out of morbid curiosity, what did they say about me at Mirror neuron? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response and decision on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.59.31.70. USEPA James ( talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please have a look at my comment here: [45]? Thanks. Grand master 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The person using the edit summaries to disrupt editing has done so on the entry for mirror box. It appears that IP address was already blocked when they used 170.213.131.190 to write the edit summary. Neurorel ( talk) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel
Here's the diff: [46]. They did it back on February 18, and I guess we didn't notice it until now, but I reverted it now. I don't see any more recent such edit summaries for the user contributions from that IP address. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I see you semi protected this article. It has a speedy A9 template on it, and seemed to meet the requirements for it, so I deleted it. But this subject is not really my specialty, and if I did something that you think is not correct, please correct it, by restoring the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Jalexander--WMF 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to take a moment to express my strong appreciation for your contribution to the project. This happens to be occasioned by your recent WP:DUCK block, from SPI, of the OregonDucks97401 account as a reincarnation of a previous COI editor. But I also want to make it clear that I sincerely appreciate the very considerable and ongoing contribution you make here.
I think most of us tend to take the infrastructure that makes it possible for us to participate here somewhat for granted, but of course no one would be able to contribute at all without that infrastructure running relatively smoothly. You're one of the many dedicated folks who makes that happen, and I think we should all acknowledge such effort much more often than we generally do. So thank you, very much, for your work; I'm grateful for it. Best, – OhioStandard ( talk) 09:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's continuing. Diff: [47]. Neurorel told me about it at my talk. I don't see anything else from this IP address, but it's one of the same addresses that you blocked previously. In addition to wiping the edit summary and reblocking, it might be worth semi-protecting Mirror box. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the above investigation and make a judgement call? Its been sitting idle a few days. If you think it is an unjustified accusation, I am willing to engage the suspect some more regarding an ongoing AFD, but I do not want to waste my time if it is just another sock. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I really think banned user Rosanacurso is back. Please see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso. Let's see what happens at SPI, but I would like to suggest semi-protection of Tea (meal) and Talk:Tea (meal) as that has just been hit and they were by far the hardest hit pages last time. Thank you. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 06:21, 9 March 2012 (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 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
please take a look at this account [1]. smells like iamtrhino. compare these two diffs: [2], [3]. or these two: [4], [5]-- mustihussain 20:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have blocked both User:Blue-bottle and User:Portuguese Man o' War with a block reason of Abusing multiple accounts. I can find no evidence of abuse, so would you be kind enough, please, to explain the abuse that caused you to block these accounts? I can see that the policy states:
Was there an overlap where two accounts were used to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or any of the other things mentioned? I'm having difficulty in seeing what made you block two apparently abandoned accounts whose contributions were wholly constructive. Thanks in advance, -- RexxS ( talk) 00:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
For some reason I had to do a lot of SPI reports recently, and I realised that some things are not completely clear to me as I got some checking rejected that I think was similar to cases when it was accepted in the past, sometimes even after filing an SPI request without checking. Most importantly, the rules for (not) connecting named accounts to dynamic IPs with a non-empty contribution history who are clearly not cases of accidental logged-out editing seem to have changed, or maybe I never understood them. Which options should I consider in such cases in the future?
Maybe it also makes a difference if part of the information has already been public, such as when connecting an editor of obvious nationality to a dynamic IP in the country's capital?
Maybe the guidance at WP:SPI should also be clarified. At the moment it seems to speak only about the exposure of IPs that were not reported due to a relevant edit history. Hans Adler 10:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I have replied and provided clarifications explaining the validity of the case in this SPI case. Salvidrim! 01:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong, would you take a look at this discussion and block WölffReik ( talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption? You were involved with this user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik/Archive. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 23:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have received the attack from Mr.choppers here and here. Please warn to Mr.choppers. Moreover, Mr.choppers is doing obstinately incomprehensible edit. It seems that Mr.choppers thought that two fire trucks were introduced. Mr.choppers should accept and apologize for Mr.choppers mistake. DigitalShop78 ( talk) 04:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
— Commander (Ping me) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Annoyong, there has been a lot of sock-puppets at Iraqi Turkmens. I believe that User:MamRostam03 now seems to have created a new user name "User:KakaSur" in order to continue disrupting the article. Turco85 ( Talk) 15:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Concerning this: newbie - User talk:186.73.132.154 seems to actually be this editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus/Archive, apparently acting as a new account, please check into this. Thank you... Modernist ( talk) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Could you please take a look at two reports on two suspicious accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I? Much appreciated. Tuscumbia ( talk) 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
[6] Thanks for combining those. I'm sorry, I didn't notice the SPI until after reporting the IP via Twinkle, because I worked out who it User:198.234.45.207 was separately from the deleted articles (after eir request on my talk), and didn't see the report/block (as it was range-block). Thanks again, Chzz ► 02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could look into a new issue that seems to be cropping up here The incident was moved to the archive, but remains unresolved. I believe the IP in question has not edited in awhile, which may be why the case was archived, that or no action was taken. I'm not sure where to go from here, however I wish some action could have been taken before the case was archived. Any thoughts? -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
In the complaint against the Skeptics organization, you indicated that the user accounts identified in the complaint did not exist. On that basis you closed the complaint and recommended that other admins delete it.
But they do exist. So I added links in the complaint pointing to the talk pages of the accounts.
Please let me know if that clarifies.
Many thanks for your time and consideration on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind also blocking IP 83.241.234.4? He's the one giving us the most headache. Thanks, -- Eisfbnore talk 08:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Need some help and guidance here. Reference to this case. As I predicted 101 Luftballons, as a clear sockpuppet of the complex, has returned and committed the same international vandalism as was committed in January on October 26, 2011 in: es, hif, ja, simple, and sv. I stumbled on this by accident and have corrected it where possible, but what can we do to prevent a repeat here? -- W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.137.152.169/Archive
I simply have variable IP, this is not under my control, it automatically switches on computer startup, reboot or longer inactivity. I can't help it. I am playing strictly to the rules, as you can see from my edits. See Alprazolam, Temazepam and many others. 70.137.129.225 ( talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at wp:Sockpuppet investigations/41.130.91.244. Shrike ( talk) 09:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm frustrated by your ruling because I'm convinced they are the same and I thought the extensive evidence I provided was strong—and it seemed like you did too when you asked for checkuser. Your comment "I mean yes, they do have a lot of articles in common, but there's a lot of articles that one account edited that the other did not." makes me think you did not consider all the evidence. In fact, I mentioned this pattern as support for Otto being a single purpose account, which would support it being a sock. Would you please consider asking other clerks to comment instead of assuming meaning from their silence? I think it's likely that the reason for inactivity is the amount of evidence. I understand that clerks must be busy and do not want to spend much time on something like this, but this editor has driven away editors from an important topic (plastic surgery) that does not have much activity to begin with.-- Taylornate ( talk) 18:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me about that... I didn't realize that I put it down incorrectly and am about to change it right now. Van Gulik ( talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sierra McCormick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The-Pope ( talk) 16:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Why was the entry for Bahamas Habitat deleted?
Stephen W. Merritt Treasurer Bahamas Habitat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.11.142 ( talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The case hasn't been closed yet, but 79.180.108.70 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same guy.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I marked the a sockpuppet empty category for deletion here . This is nothing against you personally, but I really don't agree with that template being used because its empty and a CheckUser confirmed these suspected sockpuppets into confirmed. If you don't agree with me you can undo the change. Thank you for the help! -- Katarighe ( talk) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I have a request; I'm interested in helping out in the administrative tasks on wikipedia, and in particular I'd like to help with clerking at SPI. I don't have a lot of experience, but I'm a fast learner and would really enjoy helping out in the long run. I noticed that you're one of the current clerks and was wondering if you'd consider taking me on as a trainee? Just for the record, I've also asked User:Spitfire. Regards Basalisk inspect damage⁄ berate 05:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to check with you on the above referenced SPI. While you blocked the puppet, the master remains free to edit, lacking even a notification on his profile that he violated the sockpuppet policy. Was the decision not to block the master intentional? Or merely an oversight? If intentional, can you let me know what your thoughts are on this? I appreciate your help. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 07:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a pro-NYC vandal on the San Francisco Chinatown who's been making changes and re-igniting SF vs. NYC Chinatown war (i.e. SF one of the largest, NYC THE LARGEST). It looks like it might be Thmc1, as user is not logged in & making edits w/IP address. WOULD LIKE TO REWUEST YOU INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION. He is citing biased magazine articles as his sources, even though the sources citing the SF Chinatown page as largest are factually researched from the US Census Bureau(i.e. city-data.com, which has data for all communities in the US). His other pro-NY edits to the SF Chinatown page are also factually incorrect, and he's even assusing other editors undoing his edits of bing vandals. Please expedite this mater ASAP.
Update: I forgot to mention that the IP address of the user making the edits is 96.242.217.91. After looking throuhg Thmc1's block log I found that this is the very same IP that an investigation was opened on sometime ago. So, I guess I'm not the only here who thinks it might be Thmc1 trying to sneak his way back onto WiKi. I WOULD ALSO ADVISE THAT YOU PLACE A SPECIAL LOCK ON the Chinatown, San Francisco page so that only authorized can make edits, and the changes take effect after being checked upon by other users.
HanJinwu ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC).
Hello Annyong,
Another obvious HOOTmag/Bluesurfers sock [7], User:Purpleflights. Note the username and single-purposeness on the account, namely Developed country. Athenean ( talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Kiftaan is Lagoo sab. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1#23 December 2011. Mar4d ( talk) 04:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
here is yet another sock User:ShanuAvtararit. i couldn't file a report as the sock investigation page of iamthrino is protected.-- altetendekrabbe 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, since you are the admin who responded to this case can you take a look at the comments that were placed there after your actioning of the case. Some editor, who I've never interacted with, is alleging me to be a sock of some editor I don't know based on the fact that I'm getting the article Pakistan formally peer reviewed (along with 2 other editors) to get it back to FA and making major contributions to it. He has recently vandalized my user page by adding a sockpuppet tag to it and has done the same to many others as per his contributions (he has also vandalized the mentioned SPI page and placed his own decisions in the conclusion section). Per his comments, any Pakistani who edits Pakistan related pages is a sock. The areas of my interest are Pakistan related articles and I've edited all in a legit way. Although I don't know this editor but my edits are ten times that of his and the way he seems to know all the wiki policies, he seems a sleeper/sock himself. He further represents (purposely) the on wiki (and open to be viewed by the community) constructive collaboration between me and Mar4d as meat-puppetry. I'll report him at WP:AVI if he adds the tag again, but the comments about me at the SPI to which I'm unrelated call for a Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. Thanks. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but it was User:Shekhar.yaadav that misled me, I just copied that name. Dougweller ( talk) 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I left an explanation at the case page, and I ask you please to reconsider your decition. Best regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 04:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Added additional comments here. Calabe 1992 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to the
National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my
stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic· t 01:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
Hi! Care to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ip claiming to be LiteralKa? Cheers! -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poeticbent/Archive, what was it, exactly, that Cezary Barylka was blocked for? Pre-emtpive clarification: if he was blocked for disruption from another account, could you clearly explain what account, and what disruption? Thanks. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I invite you to another SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AramaeanSyriac. Shmayo ( talk) 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your efforts on SPI pages, although I do hope our friend will stop in 2012. History2007 ( talk) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks, on more flimsy evidence, such as use of files contributed at wiki commons, and their mutual puppeteering activities, that User:Uobquetta may be a new account of the banned sockpuppeteer User:Pd1 uob. Their commons contribs are: Pd1_uob and Uobquetta. I can't see the deleted contibutions of Uobquetta on en wiki to confirm this suspicion. I'd have added this to the SPI but it's now closed. Advice? Thanks. Bazj ( talk) 12:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! When you have a few minutes, please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish#Help Needed. Something's not quite right, but I'm at a loss to make sense of it all. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong, you recently closed this SPI investigation. It's a strange situation, but I think you might have overlooked the point here by excusing the behavior of Basil Rock. It wasn't just a username issue. This is a person who was blocked for their username, so they changed usernames, then separately recreated the blocked username and edited with both accounts simultaneously. How is this not the very definition of sock puppetry? Can you take another look at it? Thanks! -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 04:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to ask two questions in relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HenryVIIIyes. First, in a few SPI cases that I think I remember from the past, there was a link to the archive on the page. I see the link in the history (you recently archived it), but should the link be on the page? Second, is there a formal procedure for reporting follow-up DUCK socks? I could go to the talk page of an admin who blocked one of the previous socks, but I'm wondering if there is some place I cannot find where I am supposed to report things like this obvious new sock: JohnNotunique ( talk · contribs). WP:SPI seems overkill. Thanks. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the abusive user in Atlanta is editing with a new sockpuppet Keizers ( talk) 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
User:220.255.1.141 this was very recent (a few hours ago) -- it is what spurred the SPI. Thanks. elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( be free) 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
As I have already notified your fellow clerk, there has been no progress in this sockpuppet investigation for a couple of days and it has become a distraction from other more serious issues I'm dealing with. Could you please take a look? Thanks.-- Andriabenia ( talk) 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Per this: if it is SRQ (which I am utterly convinced it is), then the only real conflict between the banned editor vs. either of the unbanned "Doc" editors is why SRQ cannot understand why they were banned to begin with. As usual, they are ferreted out because of their harassment of other users and general incompetence as an editor on a collaborative project. The more I look at this new account's edits, the more diffs I can provide. Doc talk 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've added a ton more evidence to the SPI, and I have looked very hard to exclude SRQ as being Lhb1239, as I really would hate to be wrong about something like this. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that these accounts are operated by the same user - none. Some of the most obvious points:
I could go on for awhile, but hopefully you can see that there is no other logical conclusion as to who this actually is. The behavior never changes, only the account names. There is no overlap between any of the confirmed or suspected socks of SRQ that I can find. DocOfSoc did not ask to be followed around and reverted by this banned editor, and neither did the others who are being revealed as having extremely unpleasant discourse with this person, so the escalation is completely on the banned editor's part. I'm sure the CU evidence on SRQ is stale, we know she hops around on wireless IPs and the like, and we already have Lhb1239 admitting that they are from the northern Puget Sound area of Washington. The reason she hasn't even responded to the SPI report so far when she has been so diligent about maintaining "her" talk page is because she knows she has been busted. I know I'd be furious if someone accused me of being a sock when I really wasn't - wouldn't most? Whether another clerk takes up your offer to chime in, or if it takes a month to close it: it is her. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the most recent activity was 2011-12-16 -- just three weeks ago. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
Having read your message, I looked through all the socks of Satt 2. I decided to collapse me comments into a box and add two further comments, after looking at all the contributions of the socks. Andriabenia thinks they can remove my collapse boxes and has been edit warring over that. Please could you advise them that they have no right to tamper with my edits in this way. Thanks. Mathsci ( talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I wish to display my evidence in a readable way. In this case it was only HelloAnnyong's comment today that made me aware of how many very recent sockpuppets of Satt 2 there have been. I spent over 1 1/2 hours reviewing the editing of all the listed sockpuppets accounts and that made me decide on a format change. I have not removed any content (I could if I wished) and it's easy enough to read the evidence. I should not have been placed in the position where I have no control over what I add, when it is within the normal editing framework. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
is truly great, but 50 edits say almost nothing and don't allow to set any reasonable time for a block. If possible, please extend it to at least 200. Pagination is fine. Cheers. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello HelloAnnyong - Happy New Year. I noticed this SPI and was wondering if it might be better to leave it open for a full checkuser, as there are other accounts that appear similar to me (edit similar AFDs). 7 08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea how you'd think Eric444 was related to this. Eric444 is a good faith contributor who's been here since 2007. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see. [28] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The "outing" IP is back, at another IP address. Please see [29] and [30]. I guess you need to block that one too, and hide those edit summaries. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have an investigation open where a username and an IP are the chief concern. I listed potential older socks to reference a pattern (and because the form was set up that way), however it made it more difficult to "keep it simple." Is there anyway to do a CheckUser if the master is using the same anonymous IP? What about for potential "sleepers"? And is there anything than can be done to speed this process along? Thanks so much. ThomasC.Wolfe ( talk) 06:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for not listing the sockmaster; I was concerned about outing. I've now listed the sockmaster and some supporting evidence; but, unfortunately, the page is still under OccamTheRazor (the alleged sockpuppet) and not PaulTheOctopus (the alleged sockmaster). I would have corrected the template, but I've never filed such a report before and I did not want to break any more conventions than I probably already have. Cumulant ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
You closed and archived an SPI case five hours after it was submitted on August 25, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AceD/Archive, and you noted, "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." See also this related discussion from your talk page. I find it a little ironic that Computer Guy 2 ( talk · contribs) would file an SPI, and display his understanding of sockpuppet policy on your talk page, just one day after creating a sockpuppet of his own: Solo I Fatti ( talk · contribs)
I'm not asking for your opinion on whether socking is occurring; I'm already treating that as obvious fact. The 100% overlap in edited articles between these two SPA accounts; the frequent signing of comments by both accounts with "In Good Faith"; identical login times and periods of no editing, etc. -- it passes the duck test with flying colors, and makes the filing of an SPI report a mere formality. I would, however, like your input on two things:
Fun stuff. Your input, before I proceed, would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
In less than a day, Ukboxen is back as 109.123.93.228 and is still undoing all of my edits.
Is there anyway to stop him from making more and more IPs? -- TheShadowCrow ( talk) 15:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
— Commander (Ping me) 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Padmal has come back after a long time, and we are yet to welcome him with a bouquet. Wp:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. Please accept the honour of presenting it to him. ;) X.One SOS 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to my would-be nemesis, SRQ, we got off on the wrong foot. I sincerely hope we can now have a fresh start. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hello lol (sorry couldn't resist...sure you've seen that a million times) I am one of the many editors who watch and contribute to Circumcision and noticed you as the last admin who blocked User talk:Joe Circus. I have no issue with the block as he is clearly a puppet master but wish to make sure other users are not summarily blocked without proper compelling evidence. I'm referring to this proxy block by user:Kanonkas and subsequent label by user:jayjg. It's also true that the IP has not requested an unblock and may very well be a sock of Joe Circus but I've seen no evidence on the sock and open proxy noticeboards. I also find it curious that Kanonkas has not edited since April of last year and only 4 edits at that. What brought him out of retirement to block an open proxy and why was there no mention of this being a sock of Joe Circus? I have queried [31] Kanonkas to no avail and find communication with Jayjg pointless. I was hoping you could look into the matter or point me in the right direction or if I'm being paranoid please tell me to bugger off and I shall. Garycompugeek ( talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Not sure if Hetoum I and Xebulon are one, but please look into this new evidence. Thank you! Tuscumbia ( talk) 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the Sock case I filed earlier that you closed, it would appear that the user(s) made an account ( The Witer 20) and screwed around with my user page. While I tend to be understanding, I wasn't born yesterday and it doesn't seem like much of a coincidence. If you could look into this I'd appreciate it. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you look at Fun27 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), clearly another sock. Mt king (edits) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
hey its not my speculation its a fact, what do you know, have you even seen the show, what do you do just look around wikipedia and revert peoples knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWarear ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong (I'm a fan of Arrested Development too),
I thought I'd get in touch with you because you protected the Sri Vikrama Rajansinha article. Unfortunately you have protected a version of the article that is politically motivated and engages in historical revisionism (Tamilian101 is attempted to claim that Kandy was a Tamilian kingdom cf. the recent conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka). I have provided information below to substantiate my claims. Please either revert the article to a version prior to the edit war or unprotect it until a more neutral version emerges.
There seems to be an unconstructive edit war over the name of this article. I think it's time the matter was resolved by an administrator. The article was previously entitled, "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy". "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" was the most common name by which the last king was known as per both Sri Lankan and European records, a perusal of books on the Kanydan period will confirm this. Yes, "Sri" is an honorific prefix, but it is also the most common name by which he was known. The prefix "Mother" appears in the wikipedia entry on "Mother Teresa", this is in accordance with MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included". Secondly, Tamilian101 has been attempting to add "Prince Kannusamy" to the king's name. Pre-coronation titles should appear in the article, but certainly not in the title of the article. Addressing a king by the lower title, "prince", is incorrect and disrespectful. The article on Queen Elizabeth does have "Princess Elizabeth" appended the the article's title for this reason. Regardless of your politics, historical revisionism is unhelpful. Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, a member of the Madurai royal family, chose the name "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" upon his coronation (aged 18), and that is the most common name by which he was known throughout his life.
Furthermore, adding the name of the king in three separate languages on the English Language version of wikipedia clutters up the page with information that it largely uninformative for the vast majority of readers. It should be noted that Sri Lanka's inhabitants at the time also included Burghers and Moors (who spoke Dutch and Arabic among other languages), listing his names in all these languages is unnecessary clutter. This is why Queen Elizabeth's name does not appear in Welsh, Gaelic or any other language on the wikipedia entry, because it is uninformative on an English language encyclopedia and adds unnecessary clutter. I have added this information the article's and Tamilian101's talk page in the hope that he would see reason, but it is clear that he is trying to engage in politically motivated historical revisionism. I stated that adding "Prince Kannusamy" (a previous and more junior title) before the actual name of the king on the image and his completely unnecessary (we don't see Princess Elizabeth preceding "Queen Elizabeth II" on her wiki entry). My revisions have all been reverted without the reasons being addressed on the talk page.
This is an important article on one of the most interesting periods of Sri Lankan history, so please let's work together to make it more informative an accessible without quibbling over unconstructive modifications. If you have the time, I would really appreciate your input on how to go about getting the article back to into it's former, more accurate, version.
Thanks 124.148.180.226 ( talk) 06:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Computer_Guy_2/Archive
The investigation posting states, "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below." However, the investigation posting was archived before this editor was allowed to post and comment or discuss. I request permission to post my explanation to the archived investigation. Computer Guy 2 ( talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys. As long as we're considering revisiting this SPI so as to add more documentation, which I assume would include this already attempted claim of an "unintentional mistake", then I guess I should resume typing up the evidence I've collected -- most of which never made it into the preliminary filing of that report, by the way, since I figured the case was closed and piling on more evidence wasn't necessary. There are some additional diffs that indicate intentional, not unintentional, deception; then there's my discussions with Fatti where I excuse his behavior as that of a new, inexperienced editor with just 2-dozen edits ... and he let me believe that; and the time I explained that I posted a 3RR-warning template on his talk page because he had never been warned before ... he never corrected me (I see now you've received warning templates before on this account). There's more, some of which may have to be confidentially emailed to an Admin, as it includes information that could be used to identify future socking. Also, you were never "denied the opportunity" to respond to the actions taken; the same notice that informed you of your block also informed you about how to respond if you thought there was an error -- days before the case was archived. In equally good faith, Xenophrenic ( talk) 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like you to reconsider the close of this investigation with no action taken. You say "it really does just seem like meat puppetry" as if meat puppetry is somehow not as bad as sock puppetry. Per WP:MEAT, "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sock puppets." And, yes, the article is now protected from editing thanks to edit warring, but the fact of the matter is that it would not need to be if even one of these meat puppeting editors were blocked. The version of the article that got locked was the one they put there without consensus. They are gaming the system, and it is working. Considering that we need to get agreement before the article can be unlocked, and we never will get agreement with those two accounts wanting to make such drastic changes, the page may be locked in the non-consensus version forever at this rate. I also am starting to wonder if I should have asked for a full sock puppet investigation. I only did the meat puppet one because it was clearly a WP:DUCK meat puppet and I thought it would end up with the same actions taken as sock puppeting, per the line from the policy I quoted above. With the article's history of frequent sock puppets as well as some similarities between these editors and old, now banned editors, I think it's very possible it is also the same person. DreamGuy ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That same "outing" IP has done the same thing after the block ended: [32]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Austereraj is the master in a case that you recently dealt with and which is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Austereraj/Archive. The master has just returned with another crappy contribution pushing his name without good cause or sourcing. Is there a long-term solution? This type of behaviour has been going on for ages now. - Sitush ( talk) 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Would you take a look at Grant Cardone and issue whatever Scientology-related notices you see fit, if any? Both editors would appear to come within Remedy 5.1. Haven't talked for awhile, hope you are fine. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. It looks as though this user is still socking to evade their ban (see, in particular, this edit summary ( quack, quack?)) and edit warring on the Resident Evil (video game) article, as well as making personal remarks (though not attacks) against User:OsirisV. I'm happy to re-open the sock case if you feel it's necessary, but I thought it might be somewhat more expedient to bring it to your attention. Cheers, Yunshui 雲 水 07:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi I've left a note at the spi but basicly what I'm after is just advice. The history has involved previous blocks for socking where the unblock request said he wasnt to use other accounts. I'm not wanting you to do anything else but I'd like to know when it's appropriate to run a check user and when not just for future if it happened again would it then be or does there need to be a lot of history. Just would like to know for the future not just for this but anything. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Did I post this correctly- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Computer_Guy_2 . I am wondering since it hasn't been reviewed, and thought maybe it was because I did not ask for a Checkuser (didn't think it was required). Thanks in advance AceD ( talk) 01:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for addressing the puppets at this investigation. Query -- you didn't block the sockmaster Jigsaw, although you blocked his puppet. They worked in tandem at one of the AfDs at issue (one !voting at the Bahram AfD, the other extending the Bahram AfD unilaterally as an independent editor, presumably to give the master more time to garner support). I would have thought that the master (Jigsaw) would warrant a block for that, and as that impacts the AfD !vote, I thought I would contact you in that regard. Many thanks for your consideration. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you couldn't do anything else in closing this but from my personal point of view it's less than satisfactory. You wrote "I don't know if it's Dingle or not". Well, I do know, and it isn't, and I said so. FL launched this SPI because they didn't like my edits to Christian Concern, and even in the SPI report FL admits that "I'd be happy to withdraw this SPI". So now I'm left with this vague insinuation hanging over me, which CU would have resolved. Not happy. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 07:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You just G5'd the article Alexander Kačaniklić created by a blocked sock. Would it be possible for you to copypaste the latest revision to my userspace, as the subject is notable, and I'd like a basis from which to re-create a properly sourced clean version. AFAIK, there wasn't any copyvio material left in it. Thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 15:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Herro prease. It looks like bot updates at SPI might have stopped until next week(?!). Please tell me I'm wrong. I realize there's a backlog, and of course I'll wait my turn for the SPI I posted. I didn't know if the post would be worthwhile in a week, though. Any advice? Should I list manually? Cheers! JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think WP:ROPE is a reasonable approach. I'm watching the articles closely, and reverting / NPOVing any promotional-sounding material. So far, Joyceprof has been dropping in a bit of that, but has mainly been making good edits. Even the promotional-sounding stuff is starting to contain solid sources, so I've been able to rewrite it into something more neutral and factual.
I should add that the actions of these editors, in their latest incarnation, have drastically improved the Malegapuru William Makgoba article, which had devolved into a bit of an attack page full of concerning violations of WP:BIO. I think there's hope yet. - Kieran ( talk) 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Just curious, since I'm unfamiliar with this process - I see that you've blocked Nexia asx as a confirmed sock of 8digits. The sock was used to deliberately circumvent 8digit's 3RR block and edit the article in question. As far as I can see, no action has been taken to either extend the block of 8digits or warn him/her about what happened. Is that standard procedure, or is something still to come? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Certifiedallergist, check the background of the added IPs and reply to the suggestions for a block or topic ban for Certifiedallergist. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please have a look at this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon? I would appreciate your opinion, since you were involved in this case before. Regards, Grand master 19:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm back on your talk page, so you know what that means: [33], [34].
I notice something slightly different this time. The IP only refers to Neurorel, not Edgeform. It seems to me that it makes zero sense that either Neurorel or Edgeform would do this. Rather, it looks like the IP realizes that Edgeform has been blocked and now is pushing to have Neurorel blocked. Of course the SPI found that they all geolocate together, and there is clearly a pattern of interest in the same subjects, but I really think that this behavioral pattern is only consistent with someone other than Neurorel or Edgeform trying to get those accounts blocked, out of some odd agenda growing out of the research areas (probably autism) associated with that San Diego lab. On this basis, I think that the SPI decision to block Edgeform needs to be re-assessed. What do you think of an unblock? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear HelloAnnyong,
My name is Jonathan Obar
user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community
HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalaua. Unfortunately it looks like this idiot has immediately registered a new account Ranuralip ( talk · contribs). What to do about this? Should I re-open the existing SPI, or wait for it to be archived then open a new one? Or will you simply block him/her? Thanks in advance. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Some days I reported an IP used by Mackemfixer at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mackemfixer. You closed the case and block the IP. Now we have Argcontrib, a new user that continues things right were the IP left them (clearly, a block evasion), but the SPI is not archived yet. How do I report it then? Should I wait for the archive and report again then, add the new info to the page and change the status back to open, generate a new page at "Mackemfixer (second)" or something like that), or just tell you here? Cambalachero ( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not Mackemfixer. Please look into this. Argcontrib ( talk) 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you have a look at User talk:Savatage Gutter Ballet when you have time? They are proclaiming their innocence. The edits themselves don't appear incriminating, although I have no idea what checkuser may have revealed. Thanks. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 04:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Cammyayrutd, User:Cammy ayr utd1910 & User:Cammyaufc1910 There is no evidence of disruption other than recreating a deleted article on a new account but seems highly likely with editing of Ayr United article and similar names they are the same account. Others appear stale I'm assuming good faith that maybe he was looked out of the other accounts but would like to know if it should be reported fully or if there is anything i should be using to advice him. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering if it is normal for an indefblocked username to still be manipulating his talk page under his username that is indefblocked. This makes me think such a user can also do this elsewhere. Can you check it or something? No need to get back to me at all- just dropping you a line since you indefblocked this guy.-- Djathink imacowboy 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I am unsure where is the appropriate page for comment.
I submitted the case for investigation after checking the history of the Anglo-Indian when concerns were raised that two users had entered the debate. During this I noticed the evidence that I presented. I decided to refer the issue to those with more experience to resolve. I bear no emnity toward HonestopL. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thankyou. Romper ( talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey HelloAnnyong, I just blocked IP 91.140.87.114. Can you figure out a range block? Or should I just semi-protect their favorite targets? Drmies ( talk) 00:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I need a help from an admin. There was a long editwarring over an article, and almost all participants of it were confirmed as sockpuppets of a sockmaster. And there is a user (who I'm not sure is a sockpuppet) but who permanently supports all that sockpuppets, receives advice from them, supports their editwarring with an agressive manner and oftenly attacks me any time backing that sockpuppets (I collected a lot of evidence). Are there any rules of Wikipedia regulating such a behaviour when a confirmed user permanently supports a sockmaster? Thank you in advance! Gazifikator ( talk) 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, HelloAnnyong! You might already be aware of this, but a checkuser has confirmed that Gazifikator is a sockmaster of several accounts, editing the article on Toumanova. Please, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator/Archive#29 December 2011. Best regards, Antique Rose — Drop me a line 11:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You recently blocked 218.250.159.25 based on discussions here. As the sockmaster's data is stale, the past few blocks have largely been on behavioural grounds. (Am I reading this right?) Is it customary on Wikipedia to do blocks like this, even when the data is so old? (The IP also claims not be Instantnood in this diff.)
In my opinion, the problem with IP editors from Hong Kong participating in Taiwan-related discussions (that's what I check, though I understand there have also been issues with Hong Kong-related discussions) is the large amount of drive-by sock/meatpuppets, not a single IP editor. I find 218.250.159.25 somewhat difficult to work with and exhibiting a bit of WP:IDHT, but if they are to be blocked, shouldn't it be done for disruption and after warnings?
I find this to be particularly important, because there has been concerns (on the SPI page, for example) that some editors are using SPIs on Instantnood to silence those they disagree with. I do wish there was a better way to deal with all the socking and meatpuppeting surrounding the contentious issue, but blocking IP editors who aren't obviously socking and whose behaviour on its own does not rise to the level of being blockable doesn't seem to be the solution... :/
If you had other considerations for blocking, would you mind sharing them? Thanks. wctaiwan ( talk) 05:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Any reason not to block Kalyan97? He's only here to promote someone who might even be himself. Dougweller ( talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
One thing to note: User:A Pocket Full of Sunshine isn't blocked. Just thought I'd mention that Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to inquire why you have reverted the listing I posted recently for our new static code analysis tool? Is there something in post content that is inappropriate, or do you feel the product does not meet the criteria to be listed with the other tools currently on that list? Would it help to create a Wiki page for the product and link indirectly to it?
Just wanted to clarify so that we can share what we believe to be a valuable new, credible, real product in this space as well. Any advice to pass required editting restrictions would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgnazdowsky ( talk • contribs) 16:19, February 25, 2012
On the Nocrowx investigation - It is more about JMRH6 now and I have provided more evidence - however, you have put in a archive request. Please can you look it over again, if you have the time. Rain the 1 18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:AN#Requesting an unblock on another user's behalf. Any comments you'd like to make there would be welcome. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
[43] "This is getting very old very quickly." What would you propose I do? I decided to give up on the articles altogether, leaving them to the wolves, rather than continue any pretense of helping Wikipedia. Should I just start blocking people? Arbcom has shown itself to be toothless. The wider community has shown itself not to care. You are the most recent administrative contact I've had with this, and the best you could offer was that it was "getting old". You have no idea how much I agree with you. So, please, tell me, what should I do? -- Golbez ( talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
"198.105.46.41 has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Really? Did you check? Cherylbarksdale ( talk) 03:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, wanted to get your attention on this as you were the original clerking admin on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual. I'm pretty confident User:FavorLaw is a sock of this disruptive editor, and suspicious of the recently inactive account User:Grimso5 as well. User:Zenithfel suspects User:ChronicalUsual and his socks are themselves socks of an original editor who made a habit of editing disruptively on Libya content, User:FreemanSA, but I'm not confident enough to fully endorse that view at this moment. Anyway, thought you might want to take a look as you handled the previous (inconclusive) cases. Cheers. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to check, did I file this report ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood) correctly? It didn't seem to appear on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations after I filed it. John Smith's ( talk) 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
ChronicalUsual uses a proxy server to avoid the account creation/ip ban, so i don't think we heard the end of his socks. Sopher99 ( talk) 02:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
How do you (checkusers) determine if an IP is a school or other public computer? I was looking at the Contribution list for an IP...and it appears to be all vandalism, going back about 2 years. The style of vandalism (most often "<person's name> is <stupid insult>" strongly suggests, to me, either an elementary or junior high school. Is determining the likely owner of what appears to be a static IP just a matter of feel, or are there some tools that either CU's or regular users can do? The vandalism from this IP is typically 1-10 edits in one session, with gaps of 1 or more months in between sessions. I don't see any constructive edits among the edits. Thus, if we have any reason to believe this is a school, it seems like escalating schoolblocks may be appropriate. Thanks for your help. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I just re-opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akhunbaba due to another account adding the same material (2 different talk pages, and the new account's user page). All I did was change the SPI case status template from closed to open, so I'm not sure if that properly re-lists it or not. Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Whoever is using the Edit Summaries to attack me is now attacking Tryptofish as well. I appreciate what you have done to protect this article. I believe the article has improved with the work I have done. It must be a major headache for you to deal with a very determined person who has nothing to contribute but confusion. Neurorel ( talk) 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel
Thanks, both of you, for letting me know. And there's another one, at The Science Network [44], so you'll need to blank that edit summary too. By the way, just out of morbid curiosity, what did they say about me at Mirror neuron? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response and decision on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.59.31.70. USEPA James ( talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please have a look at my comment here: [45]? Thanks. Grand master 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The person using the edit summaries to disrupt editing has done so on the entry for mirror box. It appears that IP address was already blocked when they used 170.213.131.190 to write the edit summary. Neurorel ( talk) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel
Here's the diff: [46]. They did it back on February 18, and I guess we didn't notice it until now, but I reverted it now. I don't see any more recent such edit summaries for the user contributions from that IP address. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I see you semi protected this article. It has a speedy A9 template on it, and seemed to meet the requirements for it, so I deleted it. But this subject is not really my specialty, and if I did something that you think is not correct, please correct it, by restoring the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Jalexander--WMF 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to take a moment to express my strong appreciation for your contribution to the project. This happens to be occasioned by your recent WP:DUCK block, from SPI, of the OregonDucks97401 account as a reincarnation of a previous COI editor. But I also want to make it clear that I sincerely appreciate the very considerable and ongoing contribution you make here.
I think most of us tend to take the infrastructure that makes it possible for us to participate here somewhat for granted, but of course no one would be able to contribute at all without that infrastructure running relatively smoothly. You're one of the many dedicated folks who makes that happen, and I think we should all acknowledge such effort much more often than we generally do. So thank you, very much, for your work; I'm grateful for it. Best, – OhioStandard ( talk) 09:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's continuing. Diff: [47]. Neurorel told me about it at my talk. I don't see anything else from this IP address, but it's one of the same addresses that you blocked previously. In addition to wiping the edit summary and reblocking, it might be worth semi-protecting Mirror box. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the above investigation and make a judgement call? Its been sitting idle a few days. If you think it is an unjustified accusation, I am willing to engage the suspect some more regarding an ongoing AFD, but I do not want to waste my time if it is just another sock. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I really think banned user Rosanacurso is back. Please see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso. Let's see what happens at SPI, but I would like to suggest semi-protection of Tea (meal) and Talk:Tea (meal) as that has just been hit and they were by far the hardest hit pages last time. Thank you. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 06:21, 9 March 2012 (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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |