Jump to content

User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for regularly helping to work through the sockpuppet cases. I know it is a fairly thankless, yet much needed, task. I appreciate how frequently I see your work on resolving the cases. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Always glad to lend a hand. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your advice is requested

Hey HelloAnnyong, if you have a minute, can you have a look at User_talk:Drmies#SC_Vaslui and see if I'm advising an editor correctly? Thanks, as always, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi

Send me an email about this; I am thinking the block is not a good idea based on the checkuser. I just don't think there is enough to support a block and it just said "possible" for a match. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New HaTikwa sockpuppet

Hi HelloAnnyong. NoHounding (talk · contribs) is a new obvious sockpuppet of HaTikwa (talk · contribs). His sole contributions consist of reinserting all the reference-spam that HaTikwa is so keen on (here and on just about every other wiki). Should Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa/Archive be reopened or can you simply block the new account? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just the other way round. Izadso (talk · contribs) is a new obvious sockpuppet of Susori (talk · contribs) and many others. His sole contributions consist of Wikihounding and deleting all the references of Kühntopf-books that others inserted over a long time. Can you simply block the new account? Cheers, - NoHounding (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not. Just checkuser me. But the Kuntopf-Sockpuppets are really a pain. And for those who are not aware yet: the puppetmaster. Cheers --Izadso (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Wretched filthy show against hard-working Kühntopf. Anchorless suspicions, libel and slander. Round up the usual suspects. - And for those who are not aware yet: checkuser was declined. - NoHounding (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, hardworking Kuntopf Banned from de-wikipedia for no reason at all. Plz block his spamming sockpuppet. --Izadso (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

He was banned for alleged copyright violations, not for spamming or self promo. Your acquaintance with all the details is prove enough that you are one of his hounders. Have fun. - NoHounding (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That´s your point of view. I understand that you got banned because of your behaviour incl. copyvio, spamming and selfpromo among others. And probably because of your bad manners --Izadso (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"You"? Who are you talking to? NoHounding (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Look, I really don't care about the backstory but I do care about the reference spam. These references are being reinserted blindly, systematically and without any indication that they are of substantial value. Perhaps even more problematic is that, as documented here by objective third-parties, library holdings for Mr. Kühntopf's work are so rare that linking to his book is basically linking to nowhere. It's hard to see how that benefits Wikipedia or in fact benefits anyone other than Mr. Kühntopf. Pichpich (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


Folks, this is my talk page, not a place to snipe at each other. If any of you think there's justification for an SPI case, feel free to open a case and we'll take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You have e-mail

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.

I hate these templates, but I don't know how often you check your wiki e-mail :). Regards, AGK [•] 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

let's try this again...

Hi HelloAnnyong. It's a shame that the above thread turned your talk page into a war zone and I'm sorry that I inadvertently set it all off. But my original question stands: what exactly is the procedure here? I'm not that familiar with the WP:SOCK process and I don't know if I should create a new case, bump the old one or go to you directly. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above - if you think you can justify an SPI investigation, then open a case. If you choose to do so, go to WP:SPI, put the person's username in the box (if there's a master already, use that name), and follow the directions. It's the same process whether it's a brand new case or just an old one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hi HelloAnnyong. I'm not particularly familiar with the SPI process, however I just have a quick question about the case concerning User:Uthay6505 (SPI case here). I see that you have blocked and tagged the sockpuppet User:Rec006, but seeing as the sockpuppeteer was abusing the multiple accounts rule in an attempt to win a content-related consensus, is it not common procedure to block all accounts of the sockpuppeteer, including the main account? Thanks. Mato (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a first time offense, and it's really not all that big. If they do it again then we'll look at taking other steps. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok - thanks for the clarification. Mato (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note

hello, please also see this [1]. I am not paranoid, the evidence supports Dighapet (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

An SPI thank you

First and foremost, your handle rocks. If you've never watched, you'll have to take my word that it's especially nifty. Also, thanks for handling the SPI I submitted. Wasn't sure whether to checkuser since they're equally likely a meaty variety. Again, my thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 01:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that someone would pick a username after a TV show and not have seen any of it? I mean, there's always money in the banana stand, but.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm naming my next cat Franklin. Or perhaps baby. JFHJr (㊟) 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I thought the same thing when I first saw his username. After HelloAnnyong's banana stand comment, and seeing he speaks Japanese, I'm not sure whether the username was a pun to the show or not. — Kudu ~I/O~ 17:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Ara! Y'mean Korean? Or does he have Nihongo I haven't noticed? Likewise, I had this long sneaking suspicion and never thought to confirm till just then! JFHJr (㊟) 20:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
日本語が話せる。その上に、僕は韓国人じゃなくて、日本人じゃないんだ。 — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
ヰキ英版なのに日本語しゃべれる方多いっすね。アンヨン！JFHJr (㊟) 02:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert?

Should this[2] be reverted? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock tool

Hey. So I've been testing out your tool. I've been getting a 500 Internal Server Error a couple of times while trying it out. Is this because of the tool, site, or my comp? Got another question. How far back does the tool go? Anyways, looks good so far. Elockid (Talk) 03:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What values were you trying? And it'll go as far back as it needs to. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I got one while checking a /17 range (186.78.128.0/17) and a /19 range (forgot which it was) if I remember correctly. Both of them with 50 contribs. After another try or two, it was eventually able to show the ranges. Elockid (Talk) 03:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm seeing that too sometimes. I've reduced the max number of entries and that seems to help. Seems like it's getting stuck when parsing the results.. hmm. Let me know if you have further issues with it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Elockid (Talk) 04:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just found a few little quirks and fixed them. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Something's going on tonight, I think. I'm getting a 500 error on the toolserver itself (independent of my script) so I've opened an issue with them. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I have several times got a "Bad Gateway" error, but each time trying it once or twice more it worked. That looks to me like a toolserver problem, rather than a problem with your script. Thanks a lot for the work you've done on this. This facility is really useful, in a number of situations. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now had the same error trying to use other toolserver tools, confirming that it is a toolserver problem, rather than a problem with your script. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help; building this sort of thing was a rather interesting challenge. Anyway, the ticket I opened was updated less than an hour ago, so it seems like whatever the issue was may have been fixed. I just ran a few tests and it does seem to be doing better. I've increased the limit of items it'll show to 50. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've found another problem. In the column which lists the page which has been edited, edits to (for example) Zoo Tycoon show up as Zoo Tycoon‎. OK, the extra "‎" is odd, but harmless. However, when edits are to pages in namespaces other than the mainspace, the full page name is not given, so that for example User talk:Denisarona shows up as Denisarona‎, making it look as though it is an edit to an article Denisarona. This obviously doesn't stop it being a useful tool, but you may like to see if you can clear it up. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh, alright. I've fixed both issues. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
There may be problems with dashes (I don't know yet if other characters display the same behavior or if this page is unique). At 142.33.90.0/20, Pacers–Pistons brawl is written as Pacers–Pistons_brawl. Not of inconvenience, but just thought I'd brought it up. Elockid (Talk) 21:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like accents have problems too. Elockid (Talk) 21:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 17:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 17:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Public awareness

I think he is similar to user:NoHasbaraHere that was recently blocked.What do you think?Should I add him to the request.--Shrike (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I guess? Don't really see the connection. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Well they both share the username to promote some agenda also they both apparently interested in I/P conflict and ME topics in general.--Shrike (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC

I saw you closed this up today because the IP had gone quiet, so I thought I'd let you know that it's back and re-joining discussion on Talk:Least I Could Do and User talk:DragonflySixtyseven‎. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect Vassar College again, please

A few days ago, you semi-protected Vassar College to help deter an unregistered editor who has persistently disrupted the article. The semi-protection ended yesterday and he or she has returned. Could you please semi-protect the article for a longer period so I can stop babysitting it? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

See User talk:Martijn Hoekstra#Unblock request from the list. Looks to be collateral from a recent block of 81.247.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) that you put in place for Noisetier. Seems OK to create an account for them since they don't sound like Noisetier, from their email. This came in over unblock-en-l. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A tall one for you!

I really appriciate everything you do at WP:SPI. Also, sorry for being such a pain! The quacking was getting to me :) Ishdarian 00:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

I've just found another, active sock of User:12345678910callum: User:Reting23 seems to be following the exact same pattern. Do I need to open a new SPI case, or should I add this to the closed one?

Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess who

HelloRohil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Russavia Let's dialogue 21:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. If you think it's a sock, report it as necessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
RohilPCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the last Koov sock you blocked. Sorry, thought the username may have looked familiar to you. Anyway, it's Koov. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Koov. Russavia Let's dialogue 23:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and WP:REFUND please

Hi there, thanks for the quick sock investigation on User:Heritage1 - he's mostly harmless, but generally plays by his own rules. Can you please undelete Alistair Smith, as Smith is a notable footballer according to our notability standards - I'll check it out to make sure it's appropriate. reading from WP:BAN.. "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content" - I'm happy to take that responsibility. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure; it's been undeleted. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again - but don't forget the talk page! (they always forget the talk page!) The-Pope (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't much there, but it's done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:15, 24 September 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.

Re : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andreas2009

Yes, Marcobadotti is unlikely to be related to both. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI: please don't close one quite yet

You marked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip126 ready for closure about 12 hours ago, but new, related behavior by another user has just occurred, and I'd like it examined as well before the case is archived. I've left a comment there with details. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments

Your candidate subpage has been created and transcluded to the above-noted location.

Please answer the standard questions and also keep watch for additional questions that may be posted by the community.

Thank you again for your offer to serve as a functionary. –xenotalk 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I

Hi, Im sorry to bother you but your are the most experienced administrator on these issues. Could you please take a look at this sockpuppet investigations concerning Hetoum I. Thanks for your efforts. Neftchi (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking care of that annoying IP Sock puppet case that seems ongoing. I thought for sure the editor had taken a vacation :) --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 06:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Pratipalsingh001

Hi Fellow editor, I noticed you bloced User:Pratipalsingh001 but his other id is still able to continue editing here. Thanks SH 07:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. First time offense and not a particularly egregious one - I'm not going to indef block based on that. If it happens again, though, we'll look at other measures. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystified

May I ask why you put a warning about sock puppets on my page? I have been hassled by the queen of sox since day one here. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see no one informed you about the sockpuppet investigation case that was opened. Well, it was in response to that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
That is hysterical! I have only one account. What the heck??? That is ludicrous. Do I need peeps to vouch for me? Sincerely — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What "evidence" is being referred to? I believe this is a Bad faith accusation. I am Really upset. Please see my response on the false accusation page. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have been DocOfSoc informal mentor for quite sometime. I would like to know what evidence you are using to say that DocOfSoc (Doc 2 is what I call her) is using a sock puppet? You said on the investigation that it was on behavioral, now please tell me how you got any kind of feel for behavior when the other account made only 1 edit, which was to insert that external link. Have you forgotten the policy of assume good faith? I'm sorry but I find this accusation absurb and ridiculous to be honest. Anyways, I commented on page where the accusation has be made by Doc James. Please respond to me about this. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Account creation

Hi there HelloAnnyong. Thank you for blocking the sockpuppet as per the SPI report results. Is there any way to block the account creation? Not only does this user master sockpuppets but he's insulting other users. This kind of insults should not be permitted. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about the Xebulon case, right? That sock is already blocked with account creation disabled, but that doesn't do much if they jump IPs. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. Yes, that's the one. Sorry, that was an archive link I posted above which directed to a wrong place. How do they jump IPs if the account creation is disabled? Isn't there something called a range block? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There is, but we didn't enact one here. Honestly it's not disruptive enough to warrant rangeblocking at this time; there may also be further issues with that, such as it being a rather active range. If the behavior continues or worsens, though, we can take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Frank.diaz1994

Hi, I'm perplexed by your decision on this SPI case. This was only the 2nd SPI I've raised and I'd like to understand. Abdulazeez,ani sockpuppets and gets an indefinite ban. Then (based on edit pattern and sig) comes back as Frank.diaz1994 and does it again. This time he only gets a 24h ban? Did you really intend for repeat offenders to get off more lightly? Cheers, Bazj (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And the ban of the sockpuppet, User:Mark.jonas: "This account is a sock puppet of Mark.jonas and has been blocked indefinitely." ?? Bazj (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't completely convinced of the connection between the new accounts and the old one. Editing on the Illumina article isn't really enough to go on, and I can't find any edits of Abdulazeez spamming with that guy Larry Bock. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Bazj (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

unblock on hold at User talk:NoodlePants

User is asking for unblock, claiming it was a case of MEAT and not SOCK, and that they were unaware of the policy and will abide by it in the future. I'm inclined to AGF based on their request and the fact that there were no issues with disruptive editing or fake consensus biulding discussed at the SPI and unblock. Consulting you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. I can assume good faith on this one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the reply, and good luck in your bid for CU! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick question; Boxer cu

Hi ... I'm not protesting your bottom line (as you saw, I thought wp:duck should be sufficient), but wouldn't a checkuser have the ability to indicate that the suspected master was also in the same city as the two IPs? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the CU won't disclose that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Aaaaah. I see. The CU can identify that the person is in the same city, or even the same computer. But will not disclose to the community that that is the case because it would be releasing some personal information that the registered user is entitled to (even if he is a sock), that the IP is not entitled to (because he can be geolocated)? Because the privacy rights -- even of a sock who uses an IP as his puppet in which he gives up his location - is considered of greater importance that uncovering a sock? Do I have that right?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You're putting a spin on it, I think, but the answer is that per the privacy policy, checkusers generally won't reveal a user's IP. Extending this, under the same conditions, a checkuser won't say that "Person X is editing from the same geolocation as IP Y", as it's more or less a slight obfuscation. In a sense I think it'd be outing a user by revealing personal details, i.e. their general location. And either way, it'd be overkill for the case you brought to SPI. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 18:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock

Hi HelloAnnyong. Could you check whether User:Jorge Koli is related to the banned User:Mirwais Hotak a.k.a. User:Lagoo sab? I just have some reservations, looking at some of this user's editing patterns. Although this user did their first edit on the 11th of September, they seem to have an editing experience and know-how of Wikipedia that seems to precede the date. The latest sockpuppet of Lagoo sab, User:Mirwais Hotak, was blocked on the 2nd of September which is coincidentally 9 days before this user's first edit. Thanks and regards, Mar4d (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, I really don't know? If you think they're related, open a case with a checkuser request and we can take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
It's just that I don't really have strong evidence apart from the fact that he's def. not a new user and seems to be editing similiar articles. What's the normal criteria required for filing an SPI on a user? Mar4d (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
What you've said is among the criteria. Similarity in topics, behavior (e.g. edit summaries, phrases, terms), stuff like that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Report

Hi HelloAnnyong. Filed a report on suspicious accounts. Do you mind taking a look? Honestly, I lost track of what sock belongs to which puppeteer (could be Xebulon, Meowy or Aram-van), so I filed it under Hetoum I. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Iaaasi case

Please do not close the case yet, I intend to make an attempt to convince you. Hobartimus (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Add another...

Add another to the long list of socks of Parrot32X.

  • 76.226.126.168

Ugh! it never ends! --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Handled. For now, anyway. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 00:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to point this out: the range that would be necessary to block that IP would have a whole lot of collateral damage, so that can't really be done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I figured that, but what else can be done other than constantly reverting the edits?--ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 01:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fleetham

Hello, I apparently opened a sockpuppet investigation on User:Fleetham and accidentally marked it as closed. Thanks for noticing, I have never done this before (obviously), please tell me if there is anything else I'm missing. Thanks,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Poorly filed SPI

Could you look again at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Octanis. I've added some clarifying info, which I accept should have been part of the initial review. The principal has since edit warred again on the Brian Crowley article, so issue not 'gone away'. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I have asked Risker to look into the allegations you made about the DocOfSoc case, because it shows a continuing pattern that matches your response to the Yopienso case. Editors are innocent until proven otherwise. You cannot reverse the burden of proof and ask them to prove their innocence. And without good evidence showing that an SPI is supported, you cannot continue to accuse editors of being guilty. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that there was no good evidence. But hey, we can discuss this over on Risker's talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review these blocks

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

  1. Hopeless2011 (talk · block log · block user) by HelloAnnyong at 2011-10-06T02:07:16Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding]]
  2. Former pro se 2 (talk · block log · block user) by HelloAnnyong at 2011-10-06T02:07:18Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding]]
  3. Former pro se (talk · block log · block user) by HelloAnnyong at 2011-10-06T02:07:20Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding]]
  4. Barrikader (talk · block log · block user) by HelloAnnyong at 2011-10-07T21:32:20Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99]]
  5. Padmailer (talk · block log · block user) by HelloAnnyong at 2011-10-07T21:32:21Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99]]
  6. Wallensachster (talk · block log · block user) by HelloAnnyong at 2011-10-07T21:32:23Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99]]
  7. Rtilors (talk · block log · block user) by HelloAnnyong at 2011-10-07T21:32:26Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99]]

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Arun1paladin

I think it will be difficult to find a relationship between the suspected socks of Arun1paladin solely based on geolocation. It is evident even to an editor without the CheckUser facility, that he edited Wikipedia from Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, two distant locations of India, within a period of 3 weeks. Don't you think the account is shared among several people who push the same POV in selected articles? In the Singapore article also, this similarity was observed by an editor in March 2010. What is the action that can be taken against such activity? Astronomyinertia (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the following edits [3] and [4] by Astronomyinertia as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arun1paladin/Archive.Muppanar (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI case

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJ CG. The IP just reappeared and left you a message: [5]. Whatever should be done is your call. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Jan Rogers Kniffen

Badly bashed here. Help! I am KLM3618, and I created the Jan Rogers Kniffen page. I created it for two reasons. 1) I thought there should be one for someone as prominent in retailing as Mr. Kniffen. 2) I wanted to see if I could effectively create and edit an encyclopedic entry in the electronic world. (I have only edited in the print world up to now, and the conversion is pretty difficult, but hopefully not impossible.) So, no, my account does not exist to "puff up" Jan Rogers Kniffen. It exists to try to get the darned page right. I asked catmandone to create an account and take a shot at getting the page right, since I was having such a hard time with it. And, yes, it has sort of become a cause celebre for me now, but only for the right reasons. Thanks for your help. KLM3618 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi Annyong. This user has made an unblock request. I'm inclined to accept the explanation. The SPI archive is here. Let me know what you think. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean.. Elen turned it down.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aarongarza95

Hi there. Fyi, I was also wondering what went wrong with that page. As you can see from the edit summary I didn't touch any closing templates when creating the SPI. Anyhow, thanks for fixing the status. De728631 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Range contributions tool

Hi there, HelloAnnyong. I must thank you kindly for making your range contribution tool. Thank you. It's been an immense value to me as I often used X!'s tool before it went down. I see above that you've been working on the tool, so I was wondering if you might be able to add a feature. X!'s tool had the ability to scroll back in the contributions (i.e. next 50 link), which allowed me to look far back in to the contribution history of a range. Would it be possible to add a feature like that at some point down the road? I often dig deep in to the contributions so I thought I would ask.

While I'm here, I'd like to say I'm sorry you weren't appointed CU in this last round of appointments. FWIW, I emailed in my support for you as you've been doing great work at SPI for a good long while and I thought you could make good use of the tools. Thanks again for the new tool. It's really generous of you to help the community like that. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I appreciate the vote of confidence on that. As to the tool, I'll try to add pagination in the next few days. If you come up with any other improvements, please let me know. I'll drop you a message when it's done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It's been updated. Let me know what you think? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
AWESOME! You rock, HelloAnnyong! I guess you can tell from my response that the tool is working perfectly. I even tried to break it a little. I fed it a malformed URL adding a date in 2010 to the lastdate paramter (i.e. lastdate=20100201000000) and it worked just fine. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the tool and your hard work creating it. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent SPI case

Hello. Sorry to bother you if I should be raising this elsewhere but you recently closed a case, now in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive, which was raised by User:AssociateAffiliate who had been subjected to abuse by Daft who now operates as User:KestevenBullet. You rightly stated that the KB account had been stale for several months but it is now active again. I've already raised the current problems at WP:ANI under the "Multiple issues" topic but I was wondering if you could reopen AssociateAffiliate's case given recent developments including personal attacks and edit warring. Please advise me of what I should do if you are unable to help personally. Thanks for your time. ----Jack | talk page 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You da MAN!...or you da Admin!

Thanks for getting rid to those unused references on Occupy Wall Street. I just learned how to clean those up today but had been waiting to also change the formatting so this problem can be behind us on that page as this will simply occur every time a reference is found to be incorrect, unreliable or does not support the claim etc. I mentioned this on the talk page and will reiterate my intention to do further cleanup of references.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Echigo mole

Would you mind sending me a quick e-mail? Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

RE Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wran

I'm a little confused - if you've blocked Alis9 as a sockpuppet of Wran, shouldn't Wran be blocked too, for misusing multiple accounts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a first time offense for the master for socking, and I'm not wholly convinced of the connection, especially given the CU results. But the case should be reopened if there are new developments. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think the editing style etc, combined with the fact that Wran admits to 'knowing Alis9' [6] looks fairly convincing - but as I'm involved in a dispute with Wran, I'm probably not the best judge of matters. We'll just have to see what transpires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wran.
Message added 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Explained, hopefully. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FFGR79 sockpuppet

This guy created another sockpuppet almost immediately. This character made the same exact change as all of his previous sockpuppets have, and also has a similar name. I don't know precisely where to bring this up, maybe you can tell me?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You'd go to WP:SPI and open another case with the same master. (It'll go onto the same page.) I've taken care of it for you this time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks a lot. Amazing how much time this guy has on his hands.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And... here we go again.

Fresh of a short vacation, the crazy IP who adds original research is back with this latest IP! "98.82.114.48" I used one of the tools you suggested (although it seems to not play well with Twinkle) and reverted all of the editors garbage edits. What's next? Wait till they IP-hop again and just continue to revert? I'm sorry I'm a bit punchy, but it seems like not much has happened to stop this (I fear there isn't much that can be done about it). Thanks for any help you can give on this matter. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 02:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've opened/closed an SPI case for it; basically I blocked a range for a month. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. This editor seems to never get the hint. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 05:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

DeltaQuad's SPI Award
Given to members of the community who take SPI seriously and show constant dedication and uphold clerk and community standards. This medal represents the honour to be serving with you on this team. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Aw. Thanks, DQ - it's been a pleasure working with you too. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello HelloAnnyong/Archive 15! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Your rangeblock tool

I always forget to post this: the tool is very useful, but the limit of 30 edits is a severe handicap - normally the tool was used to shut down a range for extended time (a few hours emergency block can be done without it), and 30 is way too little for that. Any chance to accept the user input for the limit number (which is set up as I understand)? Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to be a good neighbor and not wreck the toolserver. Having said that, I've raised the limit to 50. Also, I added pagination the other day (see a previous request on here) so you can look back. I'd think should be enough.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Great. Thanks (there is one range to be blocked right now :). I suspected that this is about toolserver resources and that pagination could help that, but didn't want to annoy with stupid comments :-) Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Banned User evading ban via IP-based-edits

Hi HelloAnnyong, The user you blocked on the 13th of October for evading his ban has returned and it looks like he has resumed the same pattern of disruptive edits. His previous IP (Checkuser confirmed he was User:By78) has received a longer term ban with an expiry date of a year and I was wondering if something similar could be implemented to prevent this user from continuing with his disruptive edits. Thanks 184.77.229.73 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

chez 15 sock case

Why did you mark case closed, saying you blocked already. The new IPs are not blocked and one was used just today: 142.157.116.112 BollyJeff || talk 03:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How is blocking 0-25 gonna stop 30, 40, 49, and 112? BollyJeff || talk 13:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The range didn't cover 0-25; it covered more than that (namely 128 IPs). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this time.

The disruptive edits have begun again, but this time the IP looks way out of normal per the other socks of Parrot32X. The edits are the same, its just a different IP I suspect: 108.209.237.15. Ugh! --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 04:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Similar location, but totally a duck. This is a new range... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Range script

Hey. Your range script is quite helpful. Any chance it could be enhanced to include a higher number of contributions, the way Soxred93's script did? In some cases 300 or more would be a better limit (or no limit, just keep on paging back). In the cases I usually look at, I only care about a month or so but there could be a lot of contribs in a month. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It shows 50 at a time, but the pagination underneath should go on infinitely. Is it not doing so? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
D'oh! It scrolls back! Now all it needs is an automatic sock detector... I am learning the editing interests of all the people who work anonymously from the New York Public Library at 65.88.88.0/24. User:Ron liebman isn't there any more but there are two different troublesome editors with South Asian interests, one of whom says he is a group. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Konguboy

Thanks for blocking konguboy's sock Dumeelbatcha. I had asked for a sleeper check but the CU was denied as the data has become stale. However he has created another account Ohlikutty (talk · contribs). Proof is - this account has recreated the article The Great Wall of Tamil Nadu with the same content as Madukkarai wall (created by one of his socks and deleted as CSD G5). It also uses the File:Sellandiyamman.JPG uploaded to commons by another of Konguboy's socks and which has remained unused since. Please block this account.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And now Ohlikutty has left a insulting comment at the SPI page.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Steam

Is the hacking relevant now? lols..--Vaypertrail (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You think this may be a puppet?

I got this on my talk page, which is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creepy Crawler/Archive#15 September 2011.

I'm not sure if it's the user socking or if they are friend acting as a meatpuppet and if it rises to the "don't engage, just block" criteria.

= J Greb (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It could be a sock, who knows. Add it to the case and we can take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar

See [7] - looks like he hasn't given up socking. I've protected this page but he's editing other articles with various IPs. Any suggestions as to what to do about it? Thanks Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your protection is good. The range to block that new IP and the one in the case archive would be 182.182.0.0/17, but there'd be a lot of collateral there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Two new socks

Hi HelloAnnyong. Can you please take a look at these two under Hetoum I's SPI? Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Block

A user requested a Sock Puppet investigation for two ip's that I use in which he/she gave no evidence or explanation of what I did, all he had was an accusation, yet you blocked both ip's for no reason. I request that you unblock those ip's as it is unnecessary and has no basis. This is the SPI page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacksoncw/Archive#Comments_by_other_users--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See, I don't think it's baseless. And it's interesting that you would come to the aid of the IPs like this... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

Thanks for adding the check user request re: Destinero. I wasn't so sure with how it all worked when I first posted the sockpuppet investigation, and I figured I should have asked for a checkuser. So thanks! :) SarahStierch (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI outcome

See here.

I thought the possible to likely association was with Proofplus, not with Ran kurosawa. Yet, the block of Technoratti was as a sock puppet of Ran kurosawa, as opposed to a block evasion by Proofplus. Did I miss something?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've updated the tag on Technoratti. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It pains me to say this, but given the confusion, shouldn't the block of Ran kurosawa be lifted?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they're unrelated to this. I have a feeling it's meatpuppetry of a form. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

North Carolina IP vandals

Thanks for taking care of those two! I'll keep an eye on the Star Wars canon article next week, tho, when the block on one of them expires... MikeWazowski (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions

By this, do you mean this? It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Also - been meaning to ask, are you a fan of Arrested Development? pablo 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that other case. Someone will get around to it soon, I was just really busy/tired last night. And remember - there's always money in the banana stand. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually it looks a bit thin anyway - no real abuse. pablo 14:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

A favour

Hello. I would appreciate it if you look after this as the suspected sock is continuously removing all the stuff in the page and undoing edits without explanations. Secret of success Talk to me 12:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The history page might help. Thank you. Secret of success Talk to me 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I endorsed the case; would you like me to endorse it again? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
As long as the new sock is blocked, its fine. Secret of success Talk to me 14:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you telling me that Vedanthbasappa is a sock of Padmalakshmisx, and they reported themselves? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Just check the history page and you will see that he/she undid my edits in which I had added his name in the sock list. Check the contributions and they are likely or confirmed matches. Secret of success Talk to me 14:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
And I was reluctant to put it there again because I did not want to revert his edits for the third time (he would undo it instantly). Secret of success Talk to me 14:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock investigation case

Hi, I read in the instructions while starting that evidence section should contain evidence only while the discussion should go in 'your own' section. So I reverted your headings change, hope its ok with you? or did I miss some format guideline? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Closed? What overlap? I guess atleast the IP should be blocked for the personal attacks on AVI and talk regardless of being a sock of the user or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I moved the headers so that you each get your own section. The "Comments by other users" section is for other users, i.e. not the original reporter. Your comments go at the top, his go at the bottom. If you two started going back and forth in a conversation, _then_ his would go underneath. Anyway, it's fine. But no, I'm not going to block that IP solely based on your opinion. You're involved in an edit war, so don't try to get around that by getting the admins to block people. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, got the header issue. About the rest, I was basing my argument on the personal attacks and not the editwar, note that I did warn the IP with a template which would mean he had the burden to start a discussion and I would be open to it but he did not respond and instead made personal attacks so I reverted assuming obvious vandalism. About the user, I agree there have been content disputes by both sides. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive IP sock of BLOCKED user

  1. Master: Nachteilig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. IPsock: 108.82.100.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
What am I looking at here? There's almost no overlap in the edits made by those two accounts. I don't see how I'm related to this at all. If you're looking for an SPI clerk to look at it, open a case. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you marked that IP's talk page as it being confirmed that they're connected. The results from the SPI didn't say "yes, this IP == Nachteilig". Anyway, I've blocked the IP for a week. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(tps butting in, sorry) -- what connected them was this edit, demanding unblock, precisely two minutes after I blocked the IP. Wasn't checkuser, just common sense. I suppose in some wildly improbable parallel universe "Nachteilig" might just have happened to be watching recent changes, didn't like me for some reason, ... or, more likely, was using that IP to be his "bad hand sock". What I will bet is he's made some more sockpuppets while the IP was blocked. Worth looking? Maybe. Anyway, thanks for your help guys, Antandrus (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem ... :) ... by the way this is him too. That one made me laugh. Oh and while I'm here -- HelloAnnyong -- sincere thanks for reviving this; I've needed that. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

Could you explain for me -- the closure of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iqinn -- does this confirm Iqinn used the open proxy? Or are open proxies always blocked?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no confirmation that Iqinn used the proxy. Per Wikipedia:Open proxies, open proxies are blocked. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Invalid Sockpuppet claim of User:Faizanalivarya

Dear friend, our respected friend User:Manicjedi reported my self as Sock puppet as you can see my profile I have created good articles as well such as Halifax Community collage and few others as well and you may see my edit counts too and I honestly respect all the rules and principles of Wikipedia and we all are here to promote and make Wikipedia good place and useful for everyone around the world, but making it personal and reporting something which I have not done its not true, and its not appreciated as well, you all my friends here justify that, Is it correct as he gave the reason which was same IP so let me tell my brother sometimes I do editing from Internet Cafe, It might possible that some one edit it, anyways IN NUT SHELL reporting me as Sock puppet is not true therefore I would request you all to be cooperative please because its not about one individual its all about our own beloved WIKIPEDIA.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations against you and me

You participated in a third opinion request last year for the article Lion's share and agreed with me. Mzilikazi1939 is accusing you of being my associate, repeatedly making bad faith accusations against both of us. Since you are being mentioned in this dispute, I thought you should be aware of it. Talk:Lion's_share#Malicious_editing Dream Focus 13:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not 'repeatedly made bad faith accusations' against you, HelloAnnyong. Dream Focus is trying to make mischief over a matter that he knows has been made the subject of a request to the Mediation Cabal. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation of David Eppstein

Of course I opened this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/David Eppstein after they opened one against me, but this doesn't mean it can't be true. In my opinion David Eppstein=Ozob. It could be good to investigate, before to believe it couldn't be true only because they opened a case against me. Simply have a look to the history page of square pyramidal number. In my opionion it's not normal that when David Eppstein risks to violate the 3RR "magically" appears the user Ozob to revert a page. The SPI against me it is another business! Do I have to open another SPI?--Romancio (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

David Eppstein is an administrator with over 53,000 edits. You really think he'd sockpuppet? Your evidence is circumstantial at best. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. There is a misunderstanding. I think Ozob is the sockpuppet!!! Do you think it's possible to investigate on it? --Romancio (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Socky

Hey HelloAnnyong, got a question. 69.66.209.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sock of User:Michael Paul Heart, aka Hermitstudy. I've blocked them already per DUCK, but I'd like to add them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hermitstudy/Archive, just for the record. Please tell me (one more time...) what to do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Activ Solar

Hi, HelloAnnyong. You closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christiankkk, but it seems that the issue is not ended yet. A new SPA user:Franzberg started editing this article. I have suspicions that this account may also belong to user:Christiankkk; however, no disruptive editing yet. However, I think that it would be better to keep eye on this article due to massive SPA/COI issues and continues attempts to remove references about links to high officials of Ukraine. Yesterday when I discovered this article under creation process, started to improve it for submission and started to look references, I did not realized what kind of can of worms I just opened. Beagel (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's suspicious enough. I've opened a new case (same SPI page) for that account. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sockpuppet case this time, but still issue related to this article. I submitted my additional comments at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Beagel (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Thanks for the warning about my 'recent editing history at Lion's share'. It's not quite the ownership problem it may seem at first. Annielogue and I have an informal partnership and explain our changes of each other's edits on our respective talk pages. In the case of the first revert, you will have noticed that permission is given to change and I was about to reformat the image in question when I noticed that it wasn't free and also that the subject was of doubtful attribution. So I dropped a note on his/her talk page and also left the information that I had sought permission to use a less ambiguous illustration. The second revert was of the story he mentioned, which is from a different Aarne-Thompson grouping about which I again informed him. Leaving a message on the article's talk page would have been a more logical choice if it wasn't being patrolled at the moment by Dream Focus; I didn't want to fuel the dispute there any further.

It is kind of you to take an interest in the progress of the article. I hope by now that you have satisfied yourself that, beyond mentioning that folklore is not your specialism on the talk page, I have not been repeating defamatory accusations. I apologise for suspecting your good faith on the earlier occasion a year ago. Your abruptness then took me aback. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Annyong, let me add my thanks for taking an interest in Lion's share to those of Mzilikazi1939, who, as he mentions, has worked very productively and constructively with me on a large number of Aesop's fable articles. I am puzzled by your warning that my recent editing history at Lion's share shows that I'm in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that I may have already broken it. Could you tell me what you felt were my offending edits? --Annielogue (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

108.209.237.15 is back.

Fresh off a block, the sock of Parrot32x is back... 108.209.237.15. I used the mass revert to remove all of the edits he/she created. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. This should be taken care of now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

87.152.176.0/20 block?

Hi, I took a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/87.152.187.231/Archive which was a request from a now blocked sockpuppet User:Njavallil. I wonder if you may have made a mistake in range blocking the IP, as I don't actually see a good reason for it although as I'm not an admin so can't see deleted contribs. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but despite the confusing list of IPs from Njavallil, there is only 2 IPs involved, '87.152.187.231' and '87.152.182.151'. And from what I can see, all that happened is 87.152.187.231 made this edit [8]. This may have come across as vandalism without any explaination but since one was offered in the edit summary I think you'd agree it's fair to say it's clear it was not vandalism, whether or not Njavallil agrees with the reasoning. (As it happens, I do agree with the reasoning and have reinstated the edit.)

Seeing this, 87.152.187.231 then queried why Njavallil had said their edit was vandalism (in 3 edits to achieve a version they were satisfied with). As it emerged on their talk page over time, Njavallil appears to often label edits as vandalism when they are not [9]. From what I can tell, Njavallil never explained why they labelled the edit as vandalism, or offered any explaination for their reversal and ended up removing most of the comments from their talk page, which they are of course entitled to do. (They had some funny user page policy which I never saw, I don't know if that offered some explaination.)

A while later, 87.152.182.151 came along and added back the original question and asked again for an explaination. (This was the sole edit.) Technically this could be considered a violation since Njavallil is entitled to remove most stuff from their talk page and it shouldn't be added back. But I don't know if it's completely unresonable to ask once again as the IP did (trying a 3rd time is pushing it) if you don't feel a satisfactory answer was given, even if your comment was removed since it's possible it was simply missed. Or if you're an IP perhaps the person thought you weren't likely to check back for an answer. In any case, no explaination was offered to 87 that they should not add back removed comment to someone's talk page so I don't think they should have been blocked for this.

In other words, it doesn't look like either IP did anything blockable or anything that bad. (I suspect Njavallil has a strange view of sockpuppetry being a sockpuppet themselves and views the IP simply changing as a violation although considering the time frame I suspect it wasn't even intentional.) If the IP was doing anything else, e.g. fooling around with one of Njavallil's deleted pages then as said, I can't see this. This is a minor issue to be sure, and the range block is nearly expired so may not even have time to lift it but just wanted to let you know.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As it later turned out, Njavallil was a sockpuppet of Divineabraham (talk · contribs) and was subsequently blocked. I think I blocked the range for what seemed to be mildly harassing the editor by editing while logged out. Anyway, I've unblocked the range a few hours ahead of when it was scheduled to end. Hopefully that puts an end to this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner

Can you get a checkuser done? User:Petescellar is also the same user, and I'm sure he has more socks. CTJF83 14:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a case for them. In the future, you can too! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! CTJF83 15:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

a question

dear helloannyong,

please take a look at these 3 users [10], [11], [12]. all 3 accounts were created november 2011. all 3 are editing or rather pov-pushing on similar pages. i suspect that User:Shekhar.yaadav is the sockmaster but i'm not sure. how do i proceed?-- mustihussain  19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

They could also be Iamtrhino (talk · contribs), who has been socking for quite awhile. Open an SPI case and we'll take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
so, Iamtrhino is the sockmaster?-- mustihussain  19:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. That was only speculation on my part; it could be someone new for all I know. I was just pointing out another possibility. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
you're probably right. the pages edited by user iamtrhino and these 3 accounts are very very similar. i have opened a case now. thanks for the help.-- mustihussain  19:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Well.. I don't know if you saw the results, but that was certainly surprising. Good catch on your part. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thanks. i am now removing the disruptive edits of all those accounts.-- mustihussain  21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jillian Michaels (personal trainer)

Hello HA. Though there is nothing wrong with semiprotection, you might want to be aware of a discussion at User talk:J.delanoy#Jillian Michaels (personal trainer). You may have learned about the dispute on this article through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.247.28.30. I was hoping that User:Best O Fortuna would do something reasonable after being told about the BLP issue, but he did not respond to my last message. My comment here is an excuse for why I haven't filed at BLPN myself, but that must be the next step. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive_15&oldid=1144419033"