User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 12
 | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
121.1.31.102
Sorry to disturb you, but can you block 121.1.31.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It is being used by a long-term vandal who, although does so sporadically (every two days at a certain hour), consistently puts misinformation on articles concerning cable and satellite TV in the Philippines, especially on the SkyCable article. He had already been warned, but it seems that he never read the messages. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of Ian Campbell (folk artist)
I am wondering why the page on "Ian Campbell (folk artist)" has been deleted. It has been a while since I last viewed it, but it looked alright the last time I did.
Is it possible for it to be undeleted? Hatlessedits (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
Hi! Can you close WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Punkox? I'm sorry for starting an investigation without much research. Novice7 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) An An SPI clerk will make the appropriate close.... appolgies should be directed to the person you accused. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) uhh...no. I agree that there is some admin action needed and the diffs talk quite a bit themselves. Flagged Appropriately. DQ.alt (t) (e) 18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Lanternix
HelloAnnyong, I previously discussed Lanternix and his suspected sockpuppets, User:Thaimoon and User:Theseker and with you here. A checkuser of his came out to be inconclusive, though the checkuser did state that both suspected sockpuppets were using proxies. You allowed the accounts to remain unblocked because they had not edited for a significant period of time. However, since then, both accounts have been used at least once more. Thaimoon has been used to mass revert another user who in turn had reverted an edit of User:Fancy.kira, who has several times re-inserted [1] [2] the edits of the other suspected sockpuppet, Theseker. I ask you once again to block these accounts on the sufficient behavioral evidence, as I have no doubt they will continue to be used, though perhaps intermittently. Planuu (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Anon
I believe the woman in a sock case involving me wanted a name change to be anonymous. It was my suggestion for her to do so. It would be good if you could delete the comment there that outs her new name, unless that causes some other problems with the investigation. PPdd (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's nice. If she wants it to be anonymous she can ask me herself. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Why was I blocked? Will this show up as a permanent stain on my history?
PPdd did not ask me to edit. Just the opposite, I came in to this to join Ludwigs2 in poking fun at PPdd because Ludwigs2 tried to insult PPdd by saying that PPdd had a “fascination with the penis”. When I saw what was happening, which seemed like blatant whitewash, censorship, and cultural narrow-mindedness, instead of poking fun at PPdd, I chimed in seriously, from an anon, then I created an account. I logged off because I was using someone else’s computer. I may have forgotten to log on. I asked for opinions of others, but not for others to express them at WP, but I may have been lax in my words and they may have expressed opinions at WP, as an unintended result, or they might have all been mine. I am not checking since I take responsibility for them in any case, but there was certainly no intention to meat by anyone. I am editing from PPdd’s laptop right now, since I forgot mine, and am so disclosing so as not to create still another problem, but I thought it was best to quickly dispel this now and not wait until I got home. I will be careful to log on in the future, which might not be for a while, and be more careful that if I ambiguously ask for opinion about whether or not there is censorship or bias, that I make it clear that I am not asking for edits, but only for opinions to be given privately to me. There is another problem in that WP:MEAT seems to be unstable in content, and it is different than what I remember, but I will err on the side of caution in the future. DanieliM (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Advice
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, thanks for your help with this. What's your advice when (inevitably) there will be more sock puppets doing the same thing? Do I have to re-open the case? (How?) Or just report those accounts to AIV? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In fact, there are five more today! Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your help! Could you please protect Talk:Tea (meal) as well? That is the page that is getting socked more than any other. It was already protected once and it has lapsed. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good call - so protected. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hetoum
Hi. I see that no progress has been made with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I, and the case is marked as not awaiting checkuser, while I requested a CU. Maybe I did something wrong, I'm not sure. Could you please mark it as awaiting CU? Thanks a lot. Grandmaster 18:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not awaiting a checkuser though, as there's no other users to compare it to. All the previous data we have is stale. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI
Hello HelloAnnyong,
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your attention is needed re. a comment you made. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yongle the "$"!"$
Just blocked and reverted another IP sock, 123.23.248.2 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Annyong
Annyong! Thanks for the smile :) Cliff (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
SPI
Hi. If I filed an SPI with CU, and the CU says it's positive, can I also close the invesigation and block the user? --Kudpung (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I took care of that case. In general, if it's a case where you've been heavily involved (socking on an article you edit on, e.g.) then I'd say leave it to the clerks. If it's something you've never been involved in before, then sure, go ahead. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Misread of Last Year's SPI
Hi Annyong; just received an e-mail through my Wikipedia account from a new editor asking why I blocked his or her participation. The post was from you, not me, and referenced a wrongful sockpuppetry accusation last year. Last Fall, the accounts were properly traced to general university and service provider URLs; the investigator confirmed all the accounts were independent. To my knowledge, this individual who sent this e-mail was not even an editor on that project last year; so I think there has been a mistake of identity, perhaps. You may want to check to see what other accounts were blocked, and I will relay any information I receive. Thanks. The e-mail, follows Cmagha (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.You can still read pages, but you cannot edit or create them. Editing from Cmm388 has been disabled by HelloAnnyong for the following reason(s): Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha This block has been set to expire: indefinite. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail. Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.
And then, this one, was sent by a different editor-now-blocked a day later:
You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit or create them. Editing from Dsker5 has been disabled by HelloAnnyong for the following reason(s): Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha This block has been set to expire: indefinite. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail. Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.
Do you need assistance in doing a technical trace? And do we need to contact the administrator conducting the AfD they were involved in to extend the time period for comment? Cmagha (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Um.. I'm not really sure what you're asking me, as they were blocked in a case that happened a few days ago (not last year). Anyway, I blocked all those accounts because they were meatpuppets of yours. Moreover, I conferred another with another clerk about the case, so I'm going to stand by my blocks. If the editor has an issue, they can email me about it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am asking you to reverse your decision regarding these individuals being meatpuppets. Why are they not independent? Cmagha (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- One of the blocked is asking for your review: Cmm388. Cmagha (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- You know, I was willing to let your editing slide - but based on your constant push to have those accounts unblocked - here and elsewhere - is making me more and more suspicious. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
As the closing admin at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha, you may be interested in the volume of new accounts which are currently participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone (2nd nomination). Should this case be re-opened again?4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for addressing this case (and I learned something, next time I'll list the oldest account as sockmaster :-). Boils24 was blocked indef, but the template on its talkpage says 24h. Perhaps you can correct that (the user page does correctly state indef, so there is no hurry here). User:Mournful has no template about the 24h block on its user pages, though. --Crusio (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Blah, you're right. So fixed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Request to review an SPI
Hello. Per new information provided, I was inquiring if you would consider taking another look at the SPI against Bugapi? Thanks! --Strikerforce (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Request to unblock OliverTwist88
Hello Annoying, you've unblocked my un-signed account. Iaaasi had purposely lead a campaign against when for writing an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magical_Magyars which is a Hungary-related article. Iaaasi is an angry Romanian user and is systematically attacking all Hungarian and Central European articles. He's fooled administrators thinking that I am a sockpuppet of Stubbes99, he managed to block two of my accounts, original 'OliverTwist88' and 'GrandMariner'. I would like this disruptive user Iaaasi thoroughly investigated and barred from Wikipedia. My name has been cleared and but he's still is launching SPI investigations on me. You gave me the choice of either re-activating OliverTwist88 or GrandMariner. Please at your earliest convenience activate OliverTwist88. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.254 (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- "..he managed to block two of my accounts"!!! What we have here, is failure to communicate. Only one account per person, Oliver. I've advised this IP that if his next edit is not an unblock request on User talk:OliverTwist88, I'll reblock that account indefinitely for disruptive editing and block evasion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this user has fulfilled the conditions for being unblocked. After his personal attacks on my talk page, he was promised to be unblocked only if he will revise his behaviour. But recently, on 18 March, he made inappropriate affirmations: "It is very clear Iaaasi and Coopuk do not want me to have access to the article I wrote 99.95% prior to Coopuk's arrival. In short, I've been trolled. The article has taken on less meaning and significance, and it totally gutted, hence vandalism. Coopuk has apparently taken over complete control of this article and even managed to change the name of the article from "Golden Team" to "Magical Magyars" that has stood for 5 1/2 years." It is obvious that this guy considers himself to be the owner of the article (WP:OWN) and doesn't want to respect the move decision made after a RFM discussion
- Yesterday he put on my talk page a message of the same type: "Iaaasi seems to be a disruptive user who needs to be blocked on a permanent basis. I'm going to administration to have this very annoying user banned from wikipedia.". He also called me above "an angry Romanian user". So he does not seem to have changed his attitude. Consequently unblocking him wouldn't probably be beneficial for this project(Iaaasi (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
- One, your account is the latest in a sockfarm - and I'm not going to unblock a sock. Further, as your complaint above is mostly about how you feel about Iaaasi, I get the sense that all you'd do is edit war with him. If you want to be unblocked, there is a path that you can follow - and this is not it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- One more request, if you don't mind. Can you please take a look on this thread? The subject of the discussion is the SPI investigation against OliverTwist88 and User:CoolKoon is bringing there false accusations against me. (Iaaasi (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
- HelloAnnoying, user OliverTwist88 / GrandMariner has been the victim of false sockpuppetry accusations of user Iaaasi who is now serving an indefinite block for disruptive behavior, edit wars and unwarranted SPI attacks on editors and contributors who write topically of Hungarian-related matters. It has been proved that OliverTwist is based out of San Diego, California and not in Hungary where the identity of Stubbs55 resides. OliverTwist88 and his IP address is the main contributor to one specific article only: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Magyars and not many others. You promised to unblock this account once the facts came to light. Please offer any assistance you can to unblock this account, your help is highly appreciated.24.25.218.254 (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Blocking of User:Koalicio along the lines of accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry connected to User:CoolKoon
Dear HelloAnnyong,
I was quite disturbed (to say at least) at the circumstances around the SPI against my account. First of all I wasn't notified about the SPI at all, as if it was meant to be done behind my back. This suspicion of mine seems to be supported by the fact that Iaaasi, who's been blocked earlier today for edit warring, has obviously gotten wind of your blocking of User:Koalicio a mere 7 minutes after you've done it.
Your accusation of sockpuppetry hurts me deeply for numerous reasons: first of all, I was open about myself on Wikipedia as much as possible ever since I've joined around 2006. I never tried to hide any of my skills which I'd later use in discussions to my advantage. Nor did I ever hide the fact that I'm a Hungarian living in Slovakia, particularly in Bratislava. The only thing I've tried not to publish anywhere was my name. This has mostly pragmatical reasons (e.g. I might've made statements my future employer doesn't have to be content with etc.), but I never tried to pretend that I'm someone else. If you check the list of my contributions, you can also see that due to my background I mostly edited articles either related to Hungarian history, Slovak history (though there's a big overlap between the two) or ones dealing with Hungarian-Slovak relations. I've also edited some technical articles to some lesser degree. I've started editing the John Hunyadi article a little while ago, but found that Iaaasi was quite uncooperative on some of the issues discussed there, so when his week-long block has expired, I thought I'd concentrate on the Hungary-Slovakia relations article instead. Obviously Iaaasi has followed me there (he rarely edited anything about that article nor did he add any content) and deleted my new section right on sight. It goes without saying that I was infuriated by his move. Despite that I've tried to remain calm and answer him in a polite manner. It was quite suspicious that he didn't show any intention at a public discussion first (only posted a notice about the revert on my talk page, but not to the article's talk page), but when he threatened to report me in one of the edit summaries I decided to call it a day and stopped. I've silently hoped that sooner or later some other Hungarian editors would show up, but nobody did. That's when this new user called Koalicio has appeared.
When I woke up the next day (i.e. today) I've seen that Koalicio has readded my new section to the Hungary-Slovakia relations article several times. I was just about to report Iaaasi for the edit war when I've noticed that Nmate has already done it. Now I took a glance at Koalicio's edit log and it seems that he's edited the Debrecen article a lot too. I've only been to Debrecen once (several years ago) so it's quite unlikely that I know anyone from Debrecen let alone instruct him to do some edit warring for me (it's about 350 km from Bratislava, so me traveling there regularly is quite unlikely too). All in all, you don't have any concrete facts or proof to substantiate you claim that User:Koalicio is a meatpuppet of mine (or has anything to do with me at all). In fact I've never even met him nor talked to him either offline, online or via Wikipedia (though I'll probably thank him for reinserting my section at the Hungary-Slovakia relations article after it's been removed by Iaaasi). Therefore you might want to reconsider the blocking of User:Koalicio on the grounds of meatpuppetry in connection with me. AFAIK harrassing and wrongfully accusing users based on unfounded allegations can be grounds for desysopping. Please take my notice into consideration the next time you accuse me of malicious intentions (also AFAIK admins are supposed to be really forthcoming in assuming good faith). -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the case? Diannaa accused you, not me. And I blocked Koalicio because a significant part of their work here was to continue an edit war that was started by your editing. Here's some proof if you want it: you made this edit, and five hours later, Koalicio made this edit. Notice how they're identical. There's some part of proof.
- Anyway, if you have no connection with Koalicio, why are you here defending them? That's a little suspect in itself. And actually, I'm curious how you found out that there was a case involving you if you hadn't been notified of it. Oh, and I'll not be threatened with desysopping by you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I did. The SPI was started by Diannaa all right, but when the result came back negative, you concluded nevertheless that Koalicio MUST be either me or someone affiliated with me. And even though you had no proof (and actually still don't for that matter) that CoolKoon=Koalicio=me, you've blocked User:Koalicio for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry anyway. Obviously Koalicio's only fault was that he restored content previously created by myself (and removed by Iaaasi) probably because he deemed it appropriate. Your "proof" actually proves only one thing: the fact that Koalicio has restored the very same content that's been removed by Iaaasi (and which I've added there in two parts), nothing more. If you would've checked my edit log, it would've been obvious to you that I've stopped editing on Wikipedia immediately after Iaaasi has threatened to report me, even though I was REALLY pissed. Do you think that if I had a sockpuppet/meatpuppet "ready" beforehand I would've waited 5 hours to continue the edit war? This seems quite illogical to me. Besides if you would've bothered to check Koalicio's edit log and compare it with mine you would've noticed that the only article with an overlap was the Hungary-Slovakia relations article. Otherwise he edited articles I never even read let alone edited (though maybe I took a glance at the Austria-Hungary one a long time ago IIRC....). Sure, he can still qualify for a meatpuppet this way, but I have to warn you that this is based on flawed logic. Or do you also assert that the users Iaaasi has mentioned me together with (Nmate and Hobartimus) are my meatpuppets too or vice versa? Or even that every Hungarian editor (or most of them) is controlled by a single mastermind?
- Why am I defending Koalicio? For two reasons: first, for the same reason as I've tried to make some admins reconsider the blocking of User:OliverTwist88 (who seemed to have blown his chance, such a shame). Second I feel a little guilty for the fact that he was blocked as a result of him trying to help me. It's quite rare to see someone doing me a favor on Wikipedia and Koalicio has made a HUGE one indeed. So I think that the least I can do for him is to clear his name and possibly try to have him acquitted on all charges and released from custody. EDIT: This is not to say I'm trying to protect him at all costs. If he would've proven to be a disruptive user, I wouldn't have a single objection to his blocking. However the fact is that the only thing you found him guilty about was that he "could be" a meatpuppet of mine. This is the accusation I resent both in my name and in name of Koalicio as well.
- How did I find out about the SPI you ask? Well, actually it wasn't that hard, since Iaaasi was bragging about it on his talk page and MediaWiki's search capabilities are quite good indeed.
- I'm not threatening you with desysopping. There's a whole Arbcom for that after all. I've just implied that if you manage to upset too many editors with your "trigger-happy" attitude and aversion to facts, you might find yourself being complained about by so many users as your fellow admins might get inconvenienced by it. So it's really up to you. As Captain Planet said: "The power is yours". -- CoolKoon (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh well. Almost a week has passed since my last message. Up to this time I've hoped that you're a reasonable person who's open to discussion. Even though you've made many contributions/new replies on WP since (and your talk page too) it seems that you didn't bother with discussing your accusation with me anymore. Obviously you didn't consider anything I've said about User:Koalicio either. I'm not sure why is this resentment towards me. Is due to the fact that it was me who Iaaasi ended up in an edit war with (and which led to the "premature" reinstating of his permban)? Is it something else? Whatever the reason, you didn't show much good faith towards me. Neither did you for Koalicio and (I'm led to believe) OliverTwist88 either. The former you've marked as my meatpuppet despite the only evidence being a reinstatement of a section removed by Iaaasi in Hungary-Slovakia relations. The section has been later re-added by User:Squash Rocket as well. Is he my meatpuppet too then? There's also the case of User:OliverTwist88, who ended up in a dispute with Iaaasi over some details about the Magical Magyars article. In the heat of the debate Iaaasi has managed to get rid of him fairly easily by claiming of him to be User:Stubes99, which turned out to be false. This has been confirmed by yourself when you've offered to unblock one of his accounts. Obviously you've had second thoughts though, since the account's still blocked. Maybe you're not bothered with keeping your word either.... CoolKoon (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocking of Neeleshpan
Hello, you recently blocked the user Neeleshpan, and now a new account has been created, who's only activity has been to comment on my talk page about the article Adya Prasad Pandey (in the same manner is Neeleshpan and Arvingssingh, similar grammar and the habit of placing talk comments at the top of the article above everything else. The unregistered ip 117.211.85.123 has also commented on the AfD page, also in the same style at Neeleshpan. I didn't know if any further action was required (as the SPI page says the case is closed), but I think it highly unlikely that this is anyone except the creator of the article, attempting to create an illusion of support. Thank you for your time. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Check the case page - I've done a bit more here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Otto
Possibly time for a range block? - Haymaker (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Giornorosso IP still not blocked?
Any reason why 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Um, because that IP wasn't listed in the case? I'm not a checkuser, so I have no context for that IP. Do you have any actual proof that that's Giornorosso? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I saw that you had been working on the latest sockpuppets and assumed you had knowledge of the checkuser info. I'll bug Tiptoey instead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
sanddude
In refrence to my account being blocked, I am both sanddude and vincedude. however the reason i created the second account was not to fool anyone into thinking i was 2 diffrent users. It was because i was unhappy with the username i first chose and i wasn't sure if i could change it, So i created a second account with a more personal name and since the edits didn't contradict each other i didn't see a problem with it. I enjoy Wikipedia and i want to be a contributing editor. I would never try to vandalize or deceive it, I simply wanted to go by a diffrent user name, Therefore i feel i may of been blocked unfairly. But once again i am sorry for any problems i may of caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanddude (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which account do you want to use - Sanddude or Vincedude? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Community edits reverted
Hi. I explained in the Community talk page the reasons why the edits on the Community page (which I made without loggin in, so I was listed there as 93.48.211.16) you just reverted should be back. Please join the discussion there. Thanks. Kumagoro-42 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
LouisPhilippeCharles latest incarnation
He's back on both the English and Italian Wikipedias here. (I have never successfully been able to resurrect an archived Sockpuppet Investigation to add a new sockpuppet, or I'd do so. Sorry.) FactStraight (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- You go to WP:SPI, put in LouisPhilippeCharles in the textbox where it says to, and follow the instructions. Anyway, I've blocked the account and opened the case for you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This user just made a personal attack, even after he was given a final warning. See his talk page and Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank You
For closing the Sockpuppet case against me and Seank100. I'm glad the case was closed with no action taken because this is definitely my only account and I'd hate to lose it over a weird mix-up like that that isn't the case at all. So thank you. One thing though, can I remove Lil_℧niquℇ №1's post that said I was accused of sockpuppeting? The reason I'm asking is that's the only post on my TalkPage right now so I'd hate to keep it unless I really have to. 1Dbad (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's your talk page, so you can do what you want with it (within reason). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The other sockmaster you couldn't think of is most likely User:UserBoxen. Same duck. Hope this helps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I sent you an email
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— elektrikSHOOS 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Quack?
As you closed previous Rian13 SPI cases with duck blocks, I'm wondering if you consider Riansmith2012 and Riansmith2012 as ducky enough for a block? Same MO, same article targets etc...wikistalk link. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I opened another case for it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Bjorn Martiz
Not a false positive. How do I email you a document on this? Ecomurph (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Click "Email this user" under Toolbox on the left. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Last month, you blocked sockpuppets of this user. User talk:98.221.196.38 is now active and it is JohnRamirez again. I don't want to go through the motions of yet another sock report, so could you look at it? Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
ReSocked
A new potential identity has emerged for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidP1953/Archive, but the case seems to have moved to the archive. A CU request showed them to be unrelated before that happened, but I'm wondering if there is a recourse to re-open the case open to investigate this new identity more thoroughly. I ask you, as you're the one who close-tagged it (I'll be watching, and can recieve your reply here). KnownAlias contact 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I dealt with the first case; the second was closed by DeltaQuad. But the CU came back as unrelated, so it's more likely that it's meatpuppetry. I'd say leave it alone for now, but if that account becomes more active, then relist and maybe we can block based on behavior. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The new guy, between realizing his IP had been blocked and seeing a thinly veiled reference to meat on my part, actually confessed to being the blocked IP, and referenced my interest between him and the other account. I've refiled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidP1953 (though BlueMondo131 is the real instigator now), and connected both accounts to the IP's they're built on. If you could look at it as soon as possible, I'd really appreciate it. I hate asking here, but the last sock case I opened (which turned out to be open-and-shut) took five days for someone to even look at, and I'd like to get this one quick; at this point he's scrambling to disassociate himself from his other identity while trying to discredit me in the notes of the new investigation, the archive and the IP's block review tag (an anemic effort; I'm the only editor that, for the sake of consensus, actually helped his disruptive cause). KnownAlias contact 11:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, someone seems to be on it after all. Sorry for being anxious. KnownAlias contact 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Possible return of a sockpuppeteer you've blocked recently
Judging by the behavior at AFDs tonight, User:יום יפה looks very much to me like User:Antwerpen Synagoge, who you blocked as a sock of User:אֶפְרָתָה. Does this call for an SPI, or am I off base? Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm.. it does seem rather likely. I've opened a case at the SPI for אֶפְרָתָה. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
98.221.196.38
Hi HelloAnnyong. Would you take a look at 98.221.196.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s talkpage and see if I have correctly explained the situation and why the IP will likely continue to be blocked? Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- lol also please forgive my transposition of y and o in my edit summary. :blush: Syrthiss (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Haha. You're fine there; it's the editor that's being combative. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sock
Hi Annyong. I just happened to notice this sock, User:יום_יפה, has been !voting in a lot of deletion discussions. Is it possible to just wind back all his edits? It would save a lot of trouble having to go through them all individually. The edits of the related socks should be dealt with in the same way IMO.
BTW, why do we allow people to create usernames with nonstandard characters? They seem quite inappropriate to me. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- There may be a way to mass rollback, but I can see a bunch of people have commented on those AFDs after that account did, so it'd fail in quite a few places. That sucks, though. As to why we allow non-standard usernames, it's because not everyone who edits here is a native English speaker, and we're not going to isolate people like that. You're not going to be able to change that policy, though, so I wouldn't put too much thought into it if I were you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I thought there was a way to delete all someone's edits? Seems to me that would be the appropriate way to respond to a sock like this, with dozens of different accounts.
- Hey, hope no ones minds me butting-in, really just here to see if there's a reason not to strike through all of יום יפה's votes. But if I'm already here: Gatoclass, you're neglecting to consider unified logins where a user would have the same username both at his native wiki, and here at the English Wikipedia. Rami R 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
What are we doing about 65.35.249.125? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing really can be done. There aren't enough edits to warrant a block, and they'd probably turn down protection for now due to there not being enough of a disruption. If it picks up again in the next few days then maybe we can list it, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
169.230.11.238
Just saw that you blocked 169.230.11.238, an IP I reverted for deleting comments from an AfD. After looking at it, I'm pretty positive the IP belongs to a UCSF computer lab instead of an individual. The block is brief enough that I guess it won't matter anyway, but since there was only one incidence of vandalism from that IP, I'm not sure a block is necessary. Kevin (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I get the sense is that it's Srbahena just taking a more dramatic approach to that AFD. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
New information for a sockpuppet investigation
This information is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dodo19 -- I don't usually get involved in these situations, but I could not help noticing that Erich Mayer, aka Erwin Meyer possibly has created a new alias (something like a sleeper cell waiting to strike). Keep an eye on User:Lasse Anderson. This ID was created right after Erich Mayer reported on his talk page on 6 April that he was finished with that user name. The log shows "00:00, 7 April 2011 Lasse Anderson (talk | contribs) new user account" - time is CDT (my time). Soon after, he started a bunch of HotCat activity, adding the Category Executed July 20 plotters--or Members of July 20 plot--to 10 different articles. This is probably his next ID waiting for the opportunity to use it as his next jumping off point. I already mentioned this to another editor at User_talk:Skol_fir#Twinkle.2C_twinkle_red_star. I am not sure it was passed on to you.
I see that Erwin Meyer was also very busy shortly thereafter, on 7 April. I am surprised you were able to track him. I missed that ID, as I am only following a couple of those articles that the "sockpuppet" is targetting. I find this individual's activity rather annoying, because he is totally fixated on upsetting the entire cataloguing system already in place with his own determination of how they should be indexed. I did notice though that lately, instead of removing categories, he has just been adding new ones. This user complains of over-categorization at Wikipedia. That may be true, but you don't solve it by using sockpuppets to completely tear apart the current structure of categories. --Skol fir (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
SPI Plouton2
Hi! A new account was created: User:Biggoboy. I guess he/she is part of the flock; would you mind checking? Alfie↑↓© 15:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Meetup guest
Are we finally going to get to meet that girl of yours? I promise not to bite! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking of bringing my great grandmother. *cough* — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, er...I promise not to bite her, either... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to appeal or have you follow User:Megalobingosaurus edits for a bit. On both the English and Italian Wikis, there have been 19 sockpuppets of Lorenzo Iorio's (aka Gravitom). So far Megalobingasaurus is following the same pattern and writing in the same style. The pattern of editing is consistent. Karuba333's edits started editing other pages and then went into Iorio's. Mega Sazabi 144 edits follow same pagern and user page is simalr to Megalo's. Look how Michoball writes with how Megalobingosaurus writes. Bgwhite (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just looked at Megalo's other edits. Tyrannosaurus' edits have been undone. Messerschmitt Bf 109 edits have been undone. Jagdtiger edits have been undone. Tiger II edits have been undone. Bgwhite (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have declined the unblock request. If you think any further investigation is required (not sure if a CU was done), feel free to revert. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine. And for the record, a checkuser was done; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MusicLogger/Archive. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar!
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For your tireless efforts at SPI - they're appreciated! TNXMan 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Heh, thanks. Always glad to lend a hand. Do we have a barnstar for checkusers? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
|
The Checkuser's Barnstar | |
| We do now! (Template:The Checkuser's Barnstar) I agree with Tnxman307—you do a very good job. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Heh, thanks. I'm not a checkuser, though... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Quack?
Hello, HelloAnnyong! A bit ago, Vernanders (talk · contribs) made an edit to the Ted Bundy article.[3] An editor who has been improving the article considerably removed it, and Vern reinserted it later.[4] Since they are now blocked as a sock, they couldn't reinsert it, but another account Fans and critics alike (talk · contribs) just reinserted it with an edit summary "unusual" for an editor who's never edited the article.[5] I see no wrestling edits from this account, but they have made a lot of edits to Queen, whom Vernanders also seemed to like.[6] What do you think? Cheers :> Doc talk 18:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. - I cannot imagine what the problem with Albert Snow (talk · contribs) is unless it's another sock. Doc talk 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
For taking care of this. Per DUCK it's nice to know if the socking is fairly blatant I don't have to request a CU. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Anglo Pyramidologist
You closed this saying the autoblock had kicked in, so no action needed, but 86.10.119.131 (talk · contribs) is not blocked. Dougweller (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was at the time, but it seems to have expired. I've just added 3 days to it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent edit warring
I noticed that you blocked an IP user over edit warring on the Daily Caller. In my opinion, there were really two sides to that scene. I would appreciate if you'd take a look at the other editor's actions, including ignoring multiple warnings on his own talk page (which he has since deleted), as well as edit warring on the article's talk page and threatening (promising) a block on the other editor.
Thank you.
Jsharpminor (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I blocked for a combination of edit warring and use of multiple accounts and/or evading scrutiny. There was enough going on that at least a one-day block was warranted. As to the other account, I'll leave AN3 to deal with it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should leave a note about this at AN3 so they will be aware of your rationale. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- So done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should leave a note about this at AN3 so they will be aware of your rationale. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- The above statement by Jsharpminor is factually incorrect. Multiple warnings were given and noted but I knew that they were not applicable since a user was committing vandalism by abusing multiple accounts. Reversion of vandalism is not edit warring. Comments on my talk page were not deleted. They were moved to a freely available to see archive. (And it's really not that hard for people to miss! It's right there, right there on my talk page. Click the link.) Vandalism on the article's talk page was removed by me (again, not edit warring). I did not "threaten" a block. I notified another editor (repeatedly) that their behavior will cause him or her to be blocked. I also tried constructively to note to him or her that vandalism is not the right path but he or she can changes things still (as you can read). Please note that ended up deciding to let the user's vandalism remain on the talk page on the hopes of putting some sense into him or her. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The block failed. The same editor is averting the block by editing using an alternative account, this one. See this edit. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocking decision
Hi, I have raised a request of sockpuppetry about User:ConcernedPhotographer, and I would like to show my kind disagreement with your decision. I think you are right about the elusive purpose of the IPs blocking... but:
- the user and its different IPs have been editing in many wikipedia projects, not only the English one, and their pattern is quite solid. They have been editing during these last months in other wikipedia projects: they are still quite active.
- the user has been blocked in the past, and now he/she is editing again. That is Evasion of blocks. As far as I understand, creating new users as a way to avoid previous blocks is not right, even more if it is not only one user, but also a handful of IPs.
- the main user has been active during the months of January, February, March and April. It's active, it's (I think) an aka of blocked users, and he's engaging in the same promotional editing than those blocked users.
I don't know if it is posible the decision to be reconsidered, nor what is the procedure. Yet I guess that it's worthy to pay a look again. Thank you very much for your job. --Xabier Cid (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I personally haven't looked over the account that detailed yet. The IPs are definitely block stale (now that I am awake to that fact :P). Pending HelloAnnyong's view I can/might look into account more. Thanks HelloAnnyong for dealing with the 6 day old case. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Xabier, the IPs are stale. I'm not going to block an account just based on a suspicion that they edited from a bunch of IPs a few months back. No, I won't act on this for now. If there are further developments, relist and we'll take a look at them - but it needs to be a bit more timely. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks HelloAnnyong, I still haven't looked at the case, don't plan to, but if that's what's going on, that's exactly what should be done, nothing at this point. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can't agree, HelloAnnyong, but I respect your decision :) :) :) Thanks for your work. I hope this account will be not relisted again. ;) --Xabier Cid (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks HelloAnnyong, I still haven't looked at the case, don't plan to, but if that's what's going on, that's exactly what should be done, nothing at this point. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
New section
Excuse me for bringing this up so abruptly, but do you not find anything suspicious about User:Dighapet's edits? How is it possible that a new user can begin creating perfectly edited articles right off the bat and file sockpuppet investigations with due attention paid to the procedures and requirements. This, along with the fact that he has exhibited many of the same characteristics borne by an editor who has been topic banned from editing articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, should have raised some alarm bells and yet no substantive investigative action, to the best of my knowledge, has been carried out. I say this now because I am amazed with the alacrity you blocked one user on the, to be honest, truly weak basis ("two edits are identical"), and yet decided not to take any precautionary action against Dighapet when an administrator himself admitted that there was something suspicious with his account. I am not accusing you of adhering to a double standard but do understand that I find your actions baffling in light of what has transpired over the past few days, especially considering that these kinds of new accounts keep popping up every and then.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I evaluate each case on its own merits - blocking or not blocking in one situation has no bearing on any other case. Having said that, the other admin in the Tuscumbia case could have done the blocking if they wanted to; I'm not the only admin here, you know. Also note that the case went fifteen days without anyone acting on it, which implies that all the other clerks and admins were ambivalent as well. If you want to talk about my closure on Monte, I was able to find specific evidence that led me to the blocks. By comparison the other case had no diffs and no concrete evidence aside from a hunch, followed by a lot of argument.
- But aside from all that, I can't help but wonder if part of this appeal to me is because of how heavily involved you are in the Armenia/Azerbaijan articles. Either way I'm not going to block Tuscumbia or Dighapet on a whim just because you approached me like this. Actually, now that I'm looking at Nagorno-Karabakh War, I see that Dighapet reverted an edit you made - so did you come here just to get me to block them for that? I hope not. Further, I hope that the two now blocked accounts reverted to your version of the article, so I can't help but wonder if perhaps they're your socks in some capacity. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see myself doing anything above other than appealing to common sense. Do you mean to tell me that you don't find it odd that an editor suddenly creates an account and starts editing as if he knows all the ins and outs of the system? Normally that would raise some eyebrows. I'm not sure exactly what evidence you are privy to regarding Vidovler, but excuse me if I say that I view your given statement on that page with incredulity, especially because much more heavily sourced cases have been dismissed in the past.
- Yes, I am heavily involved in articles related to Armenia, Azerbaijan/Nagorno-Karabakh, but I find it in bad-faith that you think that I am simply here with the intent to agitate a punitive action on your part. There are rotten apples on both sides of the fence, and that goes the same for the ones who keep creating new accounts and start raising havoc on the articles; I am assuming that users Monte Melkonian and Vidovler are different editors but, frankly, I won't miss the former editor because of the ill-faith and disrespectful manner which he showed toward other editors. I just think some more investigation is warranted when all these suspicious accounts begin to appear. You are free to believe whatever you wish, although I ask that some argumentation or evidence be adduced before such allegations are crudely thrown my way. But while we're at it, I might as well admit that I was behind the Kennedy shooting and the lead NASA technician who faked the moon landing :| --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This is very funny for me. This person says that his eyebrows are risen because some new user edited with good edits. But he is not so worried [7] about other new users who edited even with better knowledge of Wikipedia and edited beginning from the same articles where Marshall Bagramian edited himself. those users are User:Monte Melkonian, User:Vidovler, User:Mark Barsky. and why is Marshall Bagramian not saying nothing about them? Why are eyebrows not risen? Maybe because they are socks who do the work and he just watches? Because this is the way he avoids sanctions from admins? Look at Nagorno-Karabakh War talk page, instead of stating something on discussion of pov he defamed me. Dighapet (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since my name was brought here, it is at least fair for me to comment. To claim something against me, the least I ask is to back it up. I know to edit, now to file an unblock request, and follow other editors edits. What is there to know about Wikipedia more than that? I must say though, that I don't see why you constrict your English when you're rich on words, not that this matters. Vidovler (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
My attention was drawn to Tuscumbia and Dighapet by the dint of the fact that I was well acquainted with the former editor. If there are sockpuppets avoiding bans and blocks then I simply say good riddance to them, regardless of what side of the fence they sit on.
I don't want to this discussion now to digress into something else so I will keep my argument in focus. My suspicions about the possible relationship between Dighapet and Tuscumbia stemmed from the case that filed but new evidence just seems to point toward more doubt. I refer to Dighapet's filing of a SPI case against Meowy, an editor who has now been topic banned for well over a year. He himself writes that there are "many similarities" but provides no examples to build his case. I find this style of argumentation (i.e., fishing) peculiar because Tuscumbia employed the same exact reasoning in the case he filed against Meowy, when he already knew the editor's true identity. More alarm bells are set off when Dighapet outright dismisses sources written by Armenian, something which Tuscumbia has been topic banned for twice in the past year. His intimate knowledge of Wikipedia was further demonstrated in his first contributions when he already was reverting editors for making point of view (POV) edits. The whole matter just seems too fishy to write off as mere coincidences.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Marshall Bagramian, You say good "riddance" only to Azeri users and seems it doesn't matter if they are good editors, bad editors and make any kind of edits because now you're trying to defame me by connection to another banned user. You can go make reports on Tuscumbia or other editors you are suspicious on. I am just me. I have edited in Azeri Wikipedia several times in the past and know how to edit. The article on Baker Rules I already told you one time that created this article based on existing articles which were firstly created by Tuscumbia and Brandmester. How many times do you want to hear it?
I made a report on Meowy very easily. If you go to pages related to Karabakh you will see how much Meowy has made edits and when you investigate by seeing blocks and how he was suspected and discovered sockpuppet, it is very normal to think he is a sock master, yes banned for more than year but no, active for long time under different sock names.
"dismisses sources written by Armenian". Yes, I did not dismiss but said it can be unreliable and I support Tuscumbia if he said that too. This Vidovler person and other persons who make edits on same pages as you just do your work and you just watch because if something happens they will be banned but you will not. It's very normal to suspect that. Helloannyong said a great thing. You protect these persons because why? They are your socks? Vidovler, my English is great, don't worry. If you don't understand, use online translator multitran.ru Dighapet (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- This conversation is over. My talk page will not be used as a forum for this sort of discussion. Take it elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Editor XXV is back
He's not only nominating tons of articles that I started for deletion, he's reverting my edits, including the SPI for his new sock puppet. Shouldn't new editors be blocked for blanking the SPI page about themselves? Mathewignash (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Both accounts are blocked, I just protected the SPI case, Muzemike deleted the AFDs, and the CU is in progress. What else can we possibly do? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Your edits on "The Heroes"
On April 18, 2011, you declared the wikipedia page of the book "The Heroes" as a) not notable and b) not meeting the guidelines of Wikipedia:BK, and redirected it to the page of "The First Law". Surely some discussion should be done before such steps are taken? Apoorv020 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was bold in making that edit, it's true. But let's discuss it here. How does it fulfill WP:BK? Notability isn't inherited; just because Joe Abercrombie is notable doesn't mean every book he's written is. We don't have articles for any of he other Third Law books because they're notable either.
- But besides that, I see that this is an article that you started and are basically the only editor on. In terms of structural issues with the article pre-redirect, it read entirely like a book report. The plot was far too long, and the list of characters was wholly unnecessary. It cited no sources at all (aside from the book, presumably) and contained no secondary sources, so it didn't meet notability criteria. I took a look around for some sources to try to back up the book, and I just couldn't find any. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you say about the article, but removing the information already present and redirecting to an extremely outdated and short page is not a very good solution. If you look at articles for similar books (i.e. SFF books released in the last month or so), their articles are usually similar in quality (though the plots are usually smaller). I had created the page and shifted it to the main namespace in the hopes that it would attract editors to contribute to other sections (mostly the characters section which you mention). I think that this article should be left in the main namespace for one or two months, and then reevaluated. (Remember the book is only one month old). Apoorv020 (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, I tend to disagree with that. The article existed for a month and no one touched it, so leaving it there isn't going to improve the article at all. Actually, the only major changes that are necessary to break it into basic Wiki guidelines would be to heavily shrink the plot section and remove the characters section. And either way, it still wouldn't meet the notability criteria. The burden is on the editors to prove the article's notability, and the article doesn't do that. My advice would be for you to add to the First Law article itself (but keep it in line so as not to break WP:WEIGHT), or to incubate the article in your userspace and assert its notability there, and then we can reevaluate. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you say about the article, but removing the information already present and redirecting to an extremely outdated and short page is not a very good solution. If you look at articles for similar books (i.e. SFF books released in the last month or so), their articles are usually similar in quality (though the plots are usually smaller). I had created the page and shifted it to the main namespace in the hopes that it would attract editors to contribute to other sections (mostly the characters section which you mention). I think that this article should be left in the main namespace for one or two months, and then reevaluated. (Remember the book is only one month old). Apoorv020 (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Howdy HelloAnnyong. Giving Irvine's latest determination to be an ass, be prepared for more of his socks. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I protected the article for a few weeks. Let me know if things take a turn for the worse when it expires. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that - another sock appeared last night: User:StaunerOStauner. This periodic creation of multiple socks has been going on for over a year now. I assume a range block would be too difficult --Snowded TALK 07:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a range block that covered the California coast from San Francisco to San Diego, and inland to Palm Springs, would just about do it. Then if you could block West Maui too you'd be set! Need to be careful about collateral damage though. For instance this IP here is sourced from a hotel owned by Pierre Omidyar (big donor to Wikimedia). And Ron Unz is in the next room! Ingolfur Staunersson (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yep another sock by this asshole. No matter how much you try Irvine, we'll contine to block your socks -and enjoy every minutes of it-. I'll revert you, just for spite & the enjoyment that comes with it. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- GoodDay, I do believe I have turned you to the dark side. Am I your father? Ingolfur Staunersson (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yep another sock by this asshole. No matter how much you try Irvine, we'll contine to block your socks -and enjoy every minutes of it-. I'll revert you, just for spite & the enjoyment that comes with it. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks man
but here he comes again 94.69.231.214 ha! Anyway I give up... Have a nice eastern!!-Yangula (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Editor XXV
I happened to notice that the guy who is Editor XXV was bragging on gaming message board about how many identities (196) he has on Wikipedia, and he listed them (it's hidden in the spoilers tag). http://bzpb.forumotion.co.uk/t65-my-many-wikipedia-identities Don't know if that list is any use to you. Mathewignash (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not, and that list isn't correct either; for example, Amalthea and Tarc are on there, and last I checked they're not socks of XXV. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The last two on the list, user:TheSanTropezMirage and user:TheSuperlativeConspiracy, does seem to be a new users who edit like him. Join and immediately working on deletion nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then list them for a CU. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I notice that his sock puppet was called User:TArc, not User:Tarc, names are case sensitive. Later in the thread he is soliciting users to help him create new accounts, by making new accounts for him with the password "prearranged" Mathewignash (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A new sock has appeared - User:Abinashpatra10. Recreating the same junk as before. I've blocked this as a sock account per WP:DUCK (Quack 1 is the name, Quack 2 is the contents), but not sure how to re-open the SPI to add this one or whether it might be worth someone's while to check for fresh sleepers. Peridon (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Go to WP:SPI, put Avinashkrishnadasa where it says Username in the box in the middle, and follow the instructions. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
May I ask something?
I just need to know... you thoroughly read all my requests at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mordecai2222, right?--King-9 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did - but because I endorsed the case for checkuser, I'm going to wait for the results before I take any further actions. Since it's pretty clear that all the Mordecai accounts are the same, I blocked two and left the third one open. If the user wants to use 4444 primarily then that's fine; I'll change the blocks to reflect that as the master. But as to the other account, again, I'm going to wait for the CU results. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Sockmaster using proxy server to mask IP?
Hey -- I think Corbridge, a user you recently blocked for socking, might be using a proxy server to mask his IP to evade the block and avoid scrutiny. I don't know how to check that out, so right now all I have is a hunch. The IP is 96.232.12.109. Its also worth noting that one of Corbridge's previous accounts, InaMaka, accused another editor of masking his IP here so I'm pretty sure he knows how to do it. Point being, if you want to look into it, or just point me in the right direction, I'd certainly appreciate it. Arbor8 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Same user likely
[8] --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Actually per this [9], the name Cobrapack76 is not yet blocked. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You recently blocked Dcp010 as a sock of Dcp005, whom I had softerblocked, meaning that he was encouraged to create a new account, which he did. Granted, probably the new username was not such a bright idea and should have led to another username block; however, I fear we may have confused this user, this time, inviting him to create a new account and then blocking him for it... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism by sockpuppet
Is there an easy way to repair the vandalism done on the Rosa Blasi page by sockpuppet VivicaATranny? I tried using 'undo' but intervening edits prevented me. NoHenry (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- As a note, I went though and manually corrected the vandalism edit as best I could. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I smell a sock
TrackConversion (talk · contribs) is fairly fresh on the scene, but their editing skills are advanced for a newbie. Of course this could be someone who has spent a lot of time editing as an IP. There's currently a major discussion at WT:TWP#Track gauge issues over the creation of a large number of metric rail gauge categories etc. Looking at the history of Template:Rail gauges reveals TrackConnect (talk · contribs), whom you indeffed as a sock of Schwyz (talk · contribs). Would you take a look at the discussion at TWP and look over this editor's contributions. Is it worth opening an SPI or is it clearly another sock? Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Could this be Achmednut?
As I saw you were the clerk for the investigation into Achmednut321, an editor that I was at odds with over on the List of Mad episodes. Not too long ago the talk page received a comment from an editor called ILikeChips472. Here lately whenever I run across an editor I never heard of I always look at their user page and edit history - especially when their signature has red links. The account seem to have been created today, the day after the block. So could this be Achmednut? Sarujo (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I find it odd that a newbie editor would know the status of another editor, even though the status is available for everybody to view. I mean when I first joined, I didn't go around looking up such information. I went to editing articles, but maybe that's just me. Sarujo (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Redder Rose
Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malaiya, at what point in the process does a sockpuppet tag get added to the sockpuppet account User:Reading mad and their account added to [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Redder rose]]? This was my first sockpuppet report and I don't know if that's considered standard procedure or not. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I dropped the ball on this one. So tagged. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Socket Puppet using anonymous IP addresses to break 3RR
Having a bit of an issue with a user who uses many anonymous IP addresses to make the exact same change to The Undertaker articles no matter how many times myself and several other authors correct his misinformation. I know for a fact that in doing so, the user has violated the 3RR rule yesterday. The user insists on adding a recognized world championship title and a link to the page which lists that organization's history of world championship title holders. The problem is, the list that the user is using to support his information does not acknowledge this supposed title run at all. He also leaves no summaries as to why he feels this information to be accurate. I do know that there are procedures for addressing both sock puppetry and 3RR violations but with the combination of the two, as well as the use of the IP addresses, I was somewhat confused as how to approach it. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the situation and address it if possible. Here are the IP addresses being used to make that same revert over and over again.
125.164.22.75
125.164.10.74
125.164.45.143
125.164.3.80
125.164.45.81
125.164.1.155
125.164.26.100
125.164.32.221
Much thanks on anything you can do to help. NJZombie (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- You could take it to RFP for protection. That's what I've done - protected the Undertaker article for 3 days. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocking sockmaster
In this SPI, you have blocked the sock, but havent blocked / warned the master. Shouldn't the master atleast be warned not to repat this in the future?.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- He's indeffed anyway, so it's irrelevant now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Confused
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Macutty you declined the check user investigation.
But here, the sock master owns up to the sock puppetry:
I am also a little confused by CU won't match IPs to accounts.
Does that mean, that it is not possible to do a CU on Macutty only, for any sleeper accounts? Most probably editing a very hotly contested topic, if I might add.
So what happens now?
--33rogers (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've warned the master to log in when they edit, and that's it for now. There's no reason to do a check for sleepers here, as I don't really get the sense that they're editing maliciously. Having said that, feel free to relist if this sort of behavior continues. As to your question, it's more or less against the privacy policy to state "User X has edited from IP 192.168.1.100." — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a second report added to this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive#26 April 2011 which has been archived without attention. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Don't add cases to the archive - we'll never see them. Go to WP:SPI and open the case from there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I did not add it to the archive. It was on the case page and you archived both cases. O Fenian (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
In connection with your comment here and your blocking of User:Phoenicians8, that's great, but note that User:Aryamahasattva, who both DeltaQuad and myself think is clearly the same person as User:Phoenicians8, is getting away with the sockpuppetry without any sanctions whatsoever. The only reason things with Aryamahasattva seem to have "quieted down" is that he has been blocked for one week for 1RR violation on Armenia-related articles in the meantime. There is no reason to think that, once that block expires, he won't use his account again to circumvent the protection of the articles, as he did at Urartian language when that article was protected. The evidence in this case is that he is a sock of a banned user (Ararat arev) and thus shouldn't be allowed to edit at all. Sure, I can re-list the case with exactly the same evidence when he starts using his account again, but the evidence won't have changed until then, so I don't see why he shouldn't be indef blocked already at this point. --Anonymous44 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I took another look at it (now that I'm less tired) and I blocked Aryamahasattva for abusing multiple accounts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for bothering to look at it again! I'm glad I didn't have to wait and re-submit the whole thing. --Anonymous44 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Truesayer case
I've reopened the Truesayer case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truesayer as there are now 4 IPs all "Editing" the page in exactly the same fashion (both removing expenses information and adding undue/coatrack material). The case hasn't appeared on the list of open SPIs so perhaps something went wrong somewhere?--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty obviosu that User:Jobone is yet another sock, now going through all my recent edits though staying off the Malik artilce for now. Language is a very good fit for Truesayer also. Don't really know what the protocol is when things get this bad. Do I need to keep reopening the case each time a sock appears or can you deal with it without that? Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, just readd it to the case - that way we have a history of what happened. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK thanks, I just didn't want to seem rude constantly reopening it. Looks like this will be happening for while, he's clearly very determined.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, just readd it to the case - that way we have a history of what happened. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Just to say a quick thanks for moving that sockpuppet investigation case. I realised the error I made, was just about to correct it but realised you'd already moved it. Thanks :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
sock warning
Hi, got your note on my page. I do login to edit articles typically. Discussion pages I try to remember, but under no circumstances have I ever played a sock. I continue conversations in the first person, my response are obvious as to who I am. as far as I understood, logging in to wiki was not required, and anon editing is fine so long as you are not trying to manipulate or otherwise hold yourself out as a sock puppet?Macutty (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you use the first person when responding doesn't mean that we know it's you. You don't have to be logged in to edit, but now that you have an account, it's really stressed that you should log in. I brought it up because there was a sockpuppetry case opened about you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
ANI notice about SPI against User:Bizovne: [10]
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. CoolKoon (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How to reopen a SPI?
I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I found another person acting weirdly around Gwern... I've listed him here and attempted to reopen the case. Thank you for any help. --Malkinann (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Go to WP:SPI, and down to where it says "Start an SPI case here". Put the master's name in where it says SOCKMASTER, click the button, and follow the instructions. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Block for 80.6.193.71
Thanks for blocking 80.6.193.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Do you think 1 week is appropriate, given the permanent ban on the sockmaster and the several months that has been applied to the other IP address involved 81.110.220.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Given the repeated block evasion from this user it would be better if the block was extended so that both blocks match. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, blocks are cheap. I don't know if this IP is going to be persistently used or if it's the latest in a string of IP hopping. If it is repeatedly used, then let me (or someone) know and we'll make it a longer block; if not, and the person has moved onto the next IP, then no harm done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
SPI
Hey, HelloAnnyong - thank you for the continuous help on SPI with the many sock puppets of Dr.Mukesh111 and others. I wanted to ask re this case. Are you sure these two are unrelated? Has any check been made actually? Shahid • Talk2me 13:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the check was made here. I'm going to double check with the CU who ran it, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I think a block is greatly required as this clearly is a vandalism account. Shahid • Talk2me 21:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh, that's lame. Now blocked. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I think a block is greatly required as this clearly is a vandalism account. Shahid • Talk2me 21:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Nevandc98
I think you went a bit beyond what was called for with Nevandc98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He never violated WP:SOCK using Nevandc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It appears to be a quite normal case of a user deciding he wants a different name. There was [no effort to conceal] the relationship, Nevandc has never edited, and Nevandc98 was created 4 minutes after Nevandc. I blocked Nevandc as a preventative measure: Nevandc98 was blocked for a week and was being belligerent, so I made sure that the temptation wasn't too strong. Given his attitude, I think Nevandc98 will probably be indefed within a day of his block expiring, but I think the block should be restored to its original expiration date so that he has a chance to prove me wrong.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's fair. I've changed his block to reflect the expiration from the last time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Shutterbug investigation
a quick FYI, I have reopened the NestleNW911 (talk · contribs) WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbugsock investigation. The original claim was closed by you but overturned later. It is being reopened because the user in question has shown new editing patterns since the original ban was overturned.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, HJ Mitchell overturned it. You may want to mention this to them. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I already have, thank you for checking.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit conflict in Aisha
You have no right to block me because you have deleted my edits to Aisha without providing any reason, and supporting Faiz Haider's Shiite perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid Ahmad (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Are OH, MA & WM sockpuppets?
It seems users User:Woodenmetal & User:Mujahid Ahmad are SPs of user User:Omer123hussain. Can you give a check?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 20:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a checkuser, so I can't confirm anything. But if you open an SPI case for it, I'd be happy to endorse it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- As advised I have opened an SPI case at O123H, MA, WM & G1236 maybe sockpuppets.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 07:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Aisha
You are abusing your admin rights. You can be blocked too and are just as accountable, in addition to being at fault. You are the instigator and cause of the edit wars so I send you send you the following LAST warning. Don't think that because your an admin you can get away with such deceit and abuse; Wikipedia has NO hierarchy (I think you need to learn that). the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Thank you for your co-operation.
--Mujahid Ahmad (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Mujahid Ahmad
- You reverted at least five, if not six times. Read over the rules for edit-warring again, please: HellyAnnyong did not cross the line, you did--in both letter and spirit, which is why you are blocked for edit-warring. You added nothing of substance to the article's talk page and instead have devoted talk page space and edit summaries to attacking other editors. When your block runs out, you are welcome to discuss improvements to the article, but persisting in this kind of uncooperative and combative behavior cannot be tolerated. Besides, the actual content of your edits left much to be desired. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
'vandalistic edit that doesn't match any of the others' What do you mean by this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenu7 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Howdy HelloAnnyong. Irvine's back again. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'd just like a clarification of the rationale behind the closure of this SPI with no apparent action being taken, despite the 3RR violation while logged out and the use of the editor's IP to back himself up while conducting his edit wars. I understood the guideline that says sockpuppetry includes "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" to mean exactly that. Forgive me if I've misunderstood the situation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, this decision does seem a touch perverse. Some justification beyond "I'm with them" would be appreciated. Pyrope 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now there are further developments which would change my decision, plus, we have the wrong sockmaster here. I'll do some work, and then I will leave it for an admin to handle. And yes, if the IP hasn't edited in a week, if they aren't block evading (which was the case until I noticed the new sock) a block is not justified on the IPs. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at this page? I suspect that these two accounts are linked to the banned User:Yongle the Great. Thanks. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 05:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Jacob805
Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc/Archive, I may have found another sock of the user. User:Jacob805 edited Talk:Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier&diff=428045447&oldid=427233228 this diff, complaining that his edits to Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier had been reverted, apparntly recently. Yet he has only edited WP once since Dec 2010. If he has edited Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier recently, it's been under another name, ,possibly User:Amdyrowlands. Any ideas on how to proceed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jacob805 is also complaining here about his edits being reverted. Again, he hasn't edited the HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) page in recent months, and no one else has edited it since April 28, 2011. Curiooser and curiooser! - BilCat (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then open a case for the account and we'll take it from there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |