This user is a SPI clerk.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Vanjagenije

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:Vanjagenije/Signpost
User:Vanjagenije/Deletion log
User talk:Vanjagenije
Deletion log
Talk page

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!


Hello, Vanjagenije. 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.

Temporarily indefinitely blocked[edit]

I blocked you indefinitely for your egregious behavior — and then I saw that I'd blocked the wrong person! I'm sorry! I've unblocked you, and aside from the block log (which nobody should hold against you, given my unblock timing and summary), there's no damage done. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: OK, I understand. :-) I've been a racist for a minute. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the select club of mistakenly blocked editors! We have a support group that meets every Friday evening, kind of like a block party. Bring your own virtual food and drink.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You're the first person with the to-be-coveted {{User accidentally blocked}} userbox. Congratulations :-) Feel free to remove it if you don't want it. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha, two months ago I made Chasewc91 suffer the same fate. I also did this to Ryulong just hours before ArbCom indef'ed him (for real this time). Even users at the pinnacle of adminship like Nyttend and myself can make the occasional mistake. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks a lot. Now I am a certified victim. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Happened to me also. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Amazing work on sockpuppet investigations. RedPanda25 13:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Heh Vanjagenije, You have removed some of my counter arguments and evidence at the Factocop page without removing the initiating points made by Murry1975. How come? He accused me of edit warring. I present evidence that I do not edit war and you remove it. That is not very neutral. Can you reinstate evidence. TY.Dubs boy (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dubs boy: I'm just currently working on that case. I'd like to ask you to wait for a few minutes till I finish. Vanjagenije (talk)
Sorry. But I've learned a new skill. Did not know the @ symbol did that. TY.Dubs boy (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dubs boy: Did what? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Did not know the @ symbol notified a user. Wikipedia maneuvering itself for a takeover from Twitter.Dubs boy (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not the "@" that notifies the user, but the {{ping}} template. See: WP:Notifications. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

SPI: Hstudent[edit]

Could you please tell me what additional evidence I am required to produce for this case other than the additional evidence that I have supplied? I think it was a clear attempt from Hstudent to force a change in consensus after the deadline was reached. To me this shows that the losing party is trying to alter the consensus in their favour - because their side of the argument wasn't the consensus that was voted for

On the two occasions in that discussion I have mentioned my suspicions that the same person owns both accounts - neither account has made a single attempt to deny my accusation and has totally avoided addressing my suspicions - Coradia175 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, do not comment the SPI case here on my talk page. We should keep the discussion on one place, otherwise it would be very hard to follow the discussion fragmented over different pages. I'm going to answer your concerns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hstudent. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz[edit]

Hi Vanja, I responded to your question at this SPI about ten days ago. Perhaps you didn't get the notification? Could you take a look at it again? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sorry, I forgot that one. Anyway, I don't think there is enough evidence of sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't see why you shouldn't close it yourself rather than recommending that it be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

regarding my page Gaurav agnihotri[edit]


I read the introductory message that you posted. Thanks for it. However, please note that I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines about writing an article. Also, i have provided all genuine links and references about my work. Hope my article sticks and other users improve it. Regards,

Gaurav Agnihotri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav81184 (talkcontribs) 06:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gaurav81184: If you have read guidelines, than probably you noticed this one: WP:AUTO. It says that "writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community". So, you obviously did not follow all the guidelines, since you wrote an autobiography. I advice you to stop editing about yourself and to let other Wikipedia editors to that. Wikipedia has a certain inclusion criteria called "WP:Notability". Only people whom Wikipedia defines as "notable" are allowed to have articles about themselves. If you are really notable, there would be somebody to edit your article, you do not need to do that. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


It is not yet closed.[1] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I don't really understand what you want to say. It is closed as I see. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about my last message that I have posted over there? Kindly comment and keep it opened so that we can know what you or DoRD thinks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 08:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@OccultZone: As I see, your last message is a question for DoRD. He can still answer it. The fact that the case is closed does not prevent him from answering your question. The case is not archived yet, so more comments can still be added. It is just not useful to keep the case open, when all suspects are either blocked or stale. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing to do on that case, OccultZone. The last edit you pointed out is in no way a violation of any policy I can think of, so to prevent further add-on evidence, I've archived the case. If you have current, credible, actionable evidence, you can submit another case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply DoRD, we are done with this case for now. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW @DoRD: when I asked on SPI, if we should still treat the IPs as socks, I meant that per WP:DENY, which tells you to revert(except vandalism, BLPvio, copyvio) as many times until the sock gives up. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of E4024[edit]

See here. Thank you. --92slim (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Mailed you twice in 2 cases[edit]

Hello, Vanjagenije. 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.


Hi, Vanjagenije. I'm sure you remember the extensive SPI against Tirgil34 back in February-March. Lately some of the suspected socks denied a check have become very active and exhibited ducky behaviour. Compare this[2] with this.[3][4] New socks also seem to have appeared. Compare this[5] with this.[6][7][8][9][10] I'm considering to initiate another SPI with new evidence against Tirgil34 concerning both newly and previously suspected socks. Would that be considered inappropriate? Krakkos (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Sure, why not. Just stick to those accounts for which there is strong and convincing evidence. Avoid accusing accounts just because they have similar point of view. Only accuse them if they made substantially similar edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright, i've now launched a new investigation. Evidence is based on various WP:Signs of sock puppetry. Finding rock solid evidence is hard, as Tirgil34 is deliberatly refraining from leaving that; see how his sock Dashte Qom (talk · contribs) tried to cover his tracks after i launched a Tirgil34 investigation earlier.[11][12][13] My earlier request on Grathmy (talk · contribs) based on behavioural analysis was initially rejected, but Grathmy's recent quack at Andronovo culture indicates that i was right.[14][15][16] Please have more faith in me this time... If a check is endorsed for this investigation, is there a possibility that DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) could perform the check? He has certain experience with checking Tirgil34 and seems to be quite good at this. Cheers. Krakkos (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to endorse the WP:Checkuser jut because I trust you. I need to have proper, convincing evidence. I will review the case later, when I find more time. You may ask DeltaQuad to take a look, that is not forbidden, of course. But, he's been inactive for a week, so he may not answer soon enough. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
DeltaQuad has now noted on the SPI page that he has checked several of the suspects before. I'm aware that Akocsg (talk · contribs) was checked previously against Vgleer (talk · contribs). Does the check of Akocsg against Vgleer make a check against Tirgil34 redundant? Out of the six suspects endorsed in the previous case it's only Akocsg who is listed again. Were in fact all the non-stale non-endorsed socks also checked? Krakkos (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Krakkos: I don't know. Maybe DeltaQuad performed some checks on his own. CheckUsers are allowed to conduct checks even when not requested by other users. New check is always possible if we have new, strong evidence (that is the answer to your first question). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that you've created a separate list for stale suspects, including all the suspected IP socks. I've read that accounts are considered stale after roughly three months of inactivity. Are there different guidelines for IP's? Krakkos (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Krakkos: Yes. IPs are often dynamic. That means that internet providers assign the same IP address to several people in turn. That is way we only block IPs if there is current disruption (like in the last few days), or if there is long-term disruption. But, even then, IPs are usually blocked for a short time (few days) to prevent innocent people being blocked if the IP gets assigned to another person. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
In case you won't notice i've adressed this issue at the talk page of Mike V. Krakkos (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive[edit]


Sorry for my english. I don't know how work sockpuppet investigations pages, so I prefer to notify you: I blocked this IP adress (global user contributions) this morning on

Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Vanja, I'll reply to this one in French. :) - Jules78120: Merci de nous tenir au courant. Je laisserai une note à l'effet que cet usager semble se promener sur plus d'un projet. Avise-moi dans le futur si le même usager continue ses activités sur frwiki. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  13:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, c'est noté, Salvidrim! : je vous tiens au courant si nécessaire Face-wink.svg. Jules78120 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is all settled, as I don't understand a word. :-) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a notification that this particular troublemaker went cross-wiki; I added the crosswiki=yes parameter to the case template. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please undo closure!!![edit]

I have written some stuff, come take a look! [17] --Munja-x86 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


I misread your spi comment - you did not use the letter "a" and thus wrote something subject to complete misinterpretation. I was about to delete when I saw it had already been deleted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ LACABL - SPI question[edit]

Hello Vanjagenije, is it possible to withdraw an open (but not yet worked on) SPI-request? The linked case is just a minor problem (compared to other SPI cases), most of the accounts' "contributions" have been deleted anyway via AfD and they only edit very rarely or are semi-stale. If it is possible, I would like to withdraw that request - I am sure, the SPI-team has bigger fish to fry in other cases. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Of course. You can use {{Withdraw}}. But, I'm going to close the case for you. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Learned something new :), thanks for the close and your continuous work on SPI-cases. GermanJoe (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Original sockmaster[edit]

A)- Remember, in this SPI DoRD mentioned "ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master."

Technically they were not matching with Undertrialryryr. And i found their editing very different from the previous accounts.You accepted you are not sure but they were tagged "Based on the behavior".

B)- AHLM13's account abused Babitaarora in the same mannerকসমিক এম্পারার attacked her, {私はあなたにを愛し did the same thing, unknown ip, another Undertrialryryr sock

C)- Now today these three proxy IPs disrupted talkpages claiming to be AHLM13, but AHLM13 doesn't speak like that. AHLM13 is Pakistani. How can he use Bengali swear words and Bengali colloquial language.




Now check the last line of this offensive comment on Titodutta's talk page by কসমিক এম্পারার which is very similar to this edit made today by . Those who can read Bengali will understand that they are same.

All three are proxy IPs, as i checked them on internet IP Location finder and they must be blocked indefinitely, not for few hours or one week.

D)- Same guy who removed Babitaarora's complain on Materialscientist's talk page about Undertrialryryr socks. I am sure this is not Undertrialryryr.

E)- Unblock request by 115ash is the same comment he made on Ged UK's talk page with IP-, and this IP is similar to this IP- which we believe is AHLM13 as we found that his English is similar to AHLM13.

F)- If we check the contributions of Undertrialryryr, ZORDANLIGHTER, Blackwizard2000, Enterths300000, Whistlingwoods, Championkiller and vandal account BLACKIEHINDU

They don't match with the contributions and editing style of these sock accounts in other languages.

later on few socks whose names were in Punjabi language attacked Babitaarora. Their offensive comments and edit history were deleted by Materialscientist,Yunshui and Albertsquare. They were tagged as Undertrialryryr socks. I don't know whether the Ips were same or most obviously the same reason previous socks were blocked due to behavioral evidence. Once DoRD told me that personal details of any user can't be made public which includes IP address, but Check user should at least tell whether these latest sockaccounts : ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ, Lundbaaz King Shaan Shahid, Pakistani girl's breasts, ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ and ਕਾਸ੍ਮਿਕ ਏਮ੍ਪੇਰੋਰ matches with the IPs of

Undertrialryryr, ZORDANLIGHTER, Blackwizard2000,

or they match with unconfirmed socks written in other languages.C E (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@CosmicEmperor: I understand your concerns, but I don't understand what do you expect me to do? All those socks are blocked. Is it really so important to determinate who is the master? We have a huge backlog of unsolved SPIs, and I don't think we can afford to waste our time on Undertrialryryr, or whoever he might be. Please, don't take this as a comment on your work, you made an excellent investigation. But I feel that it is really not so important to know the master as long as the socks are blocked and their disruption is prevented. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning JrolesGuy[edit]

Have a look at Uhyeahright (talk · contribs)'s contributions. Given the user was just involved in an SPI, this concerns me. What do you think? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • facepalm* You already welcomed them so I guess you already noticed... Still, what's your opinion on it? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: Yes, I've seen him. But, with just one edit, we can't prove anything. It may be a schoolmate. We should wait and look at him. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hi, thank you for your help concerning the amygdalin page...I am trying to get a better understanding of the many, many different ways to communicate with everyone on Wikipedia in regards to the factual content of pages I refer people to for info.

I would very much be interested in the Group Editing if it comes about since most of the mis-information I've found on many Wikipedia pages comes not from people wanting to mis-inform but from their not being up to date on new research done in the last two years.

A lot of research done when I was at IU Bloomington in the very early 1970's is still being quoted as gospel even though new research techniques have corrected a lot of wrong assumptions made back then. Watson & Crick were my Genetics professors for two semesters 1970-71 at IU and even then I thought they were out of date!

Thank you again! It was very kind of you to spend the time to help me out. Will

Will Wiegman (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Central Intelligence Agency[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Intelligence Agency. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)