User talk:HelloAnnyong

Something to say? Add a new thread.

If you're here to report a potential sock, go to WP:SPI and open a case for the master there.

archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SPI Padmal

Hey, Padmal has come back after a long time, and we are yet to welcome him with a bouquet. Wp:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. Please accept the honour of presenting it to him. ;) X.One ^SOS 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Peace ;-)

Thanks to my would-be nemesis, SRQ, we got off on the wrong foot. I sincerely hope we can now have a fresh start. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Guidance/Clarification

Hello Hello lol (sorry couldn't resist...sure you've seen that a million times) I am one of the many editors who watch and contribute to Circumcision and noticed you as the last admin who blocked User talk:Joe Circus. I have no issue with the block as he is clearly a puppet master but wish to make sure other users are not summarily blocked without proper compelling evidence. I'm referring to this proxy block by user:Kanonkas and subsequent label by user:jayjg. It's also true that the IP has not requested an unblock and may very well be a sock of Joe Circus but I've seen no evidence on the sock and open proxy noticeboards. I also find it curious that Kanonkas has not edited since April of last year and only 4 edits at that. What brought him out of retirement to block an open proxy and why was there no mention of this being a sock of Joe Circus? I have queried [1] Kanonkas to no avail and find communication with Jayjg pointless. I was hoping you could look into the matter or point me in the right direction or if I'm being paranoid please tell me to bugger off and I shall. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If the IP was a proxy then it was correctly blocked. Per WP:PROXY, open proxies are not allowed on Wikipedia. If you're questioning the tagging of the IP's page, well, that's another story. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm not questioning the block but the circumstances that precipitated it and the evidence to label it a sock of Joe Circus. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how Jajyg came to that conclusion; you may want to ask them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Report

Hi HelloAnnyong. Not sure if Hetoum I and Xebulon are one, but please look into this new evidence. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential sock

In regards to the Sock case I filed earlier that you closed, it would appear that the user(s) made an account (The Witer 20) and screwed around with my user page. While I tend to be understanding, I wasn't born yesterday and it doesn't seem like much of a coincidence. If you could look into this I'd appreciate it. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tnxman307 {{UsernameHardBlocked}} him. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Fun27

Can you look at Fun27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), clearly another sock. Mtking ^(edits) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fun27 (talk · contribs) indef'd as sock of User:Edinburghgeo, 129.215.4.27 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) - Blocked, 24, for Evasion, G5 - Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that stuff, DQ. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Community

hey its not my speculation its a fact, what do you know, have you even seen the show, what do you do just look around wikipedia and revert peoples knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWarear (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sri Vikrama Rajasinha Article

Hi HelloAnnyong (I'm a fan of Arrested Development too),

I thought I'd get in touch with you because you protected the Sri Vikrama Rajansinha article. Unfortunately you have protected a version of the article that is politically motivated and engages in historical revisionism (Tamilian101 is attempted to claim that Kandy was a Tamilian kingdom cf. the recent conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka). I have provided information below to substantiate my claims. Please either revert the article to a version prior to the edit war or unprotect it until a more neutral version emerges.

There seems to be an unconstructive edit war over the name of this article. I think it's time the matter was resolved by an administrator. The article was previously entitled, "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy". "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" was the most common name by which the last king was known as per both Sri Lankan and European records, a perusal of books on the Kanydan period will confirm this. Yes, "Sri" is an honorific prefix, but it is also the most common name by which he was known. The prefix "Mother" appears in the wikipedia entry on "Mother Teresa", this is in accordance with MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included". Secondly, Tamilian101 has been attempting to add "Prince Kannusamy" to the king's name. Pre-coronation titles should appear in the article, but certainly not in the title of the article. Addressing a king by the lower title, "prince", is incorrect and disrespectful. The article on Queen Elizabeth does have "Princess Elizabeth" appended the the article's title for this reason. Regardless of your politics, historical revisionism is unhelpful. Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, a member of the Madurai royal family, chose the name "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" upon his coronation (aged 18), and that is the most common name by which he was known throughout his life.

Furthermore, adding the name of the king in three separate languages on the English Language version of wikipedia clutters up the page with information that it largely uninformative for the vast majority of readers. It should be noted that Sri Lanka's inhabitants at the time also included Burghers and Moors (who spoke Dutch and Arabic among other languages), listing his names in all these languages is unnecessary clutter. This is why Queen Elizabeth's name does not appear in Welsh, Gaelic or any other language on the wikipedia entry, because it is uninformative on an English language encyclopedia and adds unnecessary clutter. I have added this information the article's and Tamilian101's talk page in the hope that he would see reason, but it is clear that he is trying to engage in politically motivated historical revisionism. I stated that adding "Prince Kannusamy" (a previous and more junior title) before the actual name of the king on the image and his completely unnecessary (we don't see Princess Elizabeth preceding "Queen Elizabeth II" on her wiki entry). My revisions have all been reverted without the reasons being addressed on the talk page.

This is an important article on one of the most interesting periods of Sri Lankan history, so please let's work together to make it more informative an accessible without quibbling over unconstructive modifications. If you have the time, I would really appreciate your input on how to go about getting the article back to into it's former, more accurate, version.

Thanks 124.148.180.226 (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Request to post explanation to archived investigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Computer_Guy_2/Archive

The investigation posting states, "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below." However, the investigation posting was archived before this editor was allowed to post and comment or discuss. I request permission to post my explanation to the archived investigation. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note related thread. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The case is closed, and your account, Solo I Fatty, was blocked. Your explanation isn't going to unblock that account; neither will it remove the entry on your block log. You can explain here if you want, but there's not really any point in adding it to the case. And if you don't sockpuppet again, it's not really going to matter much. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully realize the case is closed, and my other account is fully blocked. By the way, the name was not "Fatty", but Solo I Fatti (Italian for "Just the facts"). I fully realize that my explanation won't unblock the account, nor remove the entry on my block log, nor am I asking for it to be - otherwise, I wouldn't ask. Now, you say it's not really going to matter much.... Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but it does matter to me. Posting my explanation on your talk page will, in fact, accomplish nothing. It clearly says on the investigation post. "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below.". I, as the accused, was denied that opportunity. Pursuant to advice from DeltaQuad (see the related thread), I again request permission to post my explanation on the archived investigation post, otherwise, I request to be advised of the appeal route or how it may otherwise be accomplished. Thank you for your consideration. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to appeal. The case is closed, and the accounts are blocked. What result would you want out of this aside from one of the clerks to say, "Just don't do it again?" — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for any "result" - just the opportunity to document my side of the situation. I'm not trying to excuse my action - I made an unintentional mistake, and I now realize it was a violation, nevertheless. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. As long as we're considering revisiting this SPI so as to add more documentation, which I assume would include this already attempted claim of an "unintentional mistake", then I guess I should resume typing up the evidence I've collected -- most of which never made it into the preliminary filing of that report, by the way, since I figured the case was closed and piling on more evidence wasn't necessary. There are some additional diffs that indicate intentional, not unintentional, deception; then there's my discussions with Fatti where I excuse his behavior as that of a new, inexperienced editor with just 2-dozen edits ... and he let me believe that; and the time I explained that I posted a 3RR-warning template on his talk page because he had never been warned before ... he never corrected me (I see now you've received warning templates before on this account). There's more, some of which may have to be confidentially emailed to an Admin, as it includes information that could be used to identify future socking. Also, you were never "denied the opportunity" to respond to the actions taken; the same notice that informed you of your block also informed you about how to respond if you thought there was an error -- days before the case was archived. In equally good faith, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that vitriolic attack. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, everyone stop now. Once again: this case is closed. No, you cannot add your explanation to the archive page. No, you two will not be fighting on my talk page or anywhere else. The socking is over and done. Computer guy, if you want to change your username, see WP:CHU or, perhaps, WP:CLEANSTART. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tylas

I would like you to reconsider the close of this investigation with no action taken. You say "it really does just seem like meat puppetry" as if meat puppetry is somehow not as bad as sock puppetry. Per WP:MEAT, "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sock puppets." And, yes, the article is now protected from editing thanks to edit warring, but the fact of the matter is that it would not need to be if even one of these meat puppeting editors were blocked. The version of the article that got locked was the one they put there without consensus. They are gaming the system, and it is working. Considering that we need to get agreement before the article can be unlocked, and we never will get agreement with those two accounts wanting to make such drastic changes, the page may be locked in the non-consensus version forever at this rate. I also am starting to wonder if I should have asked for a full sock puppet investigation. I only did the meat puppet one because it was clearly a WP:DUCK meat puppet and I thought it would end up with the same actions taken as sock puppeting, per the line from the policy I quoted above. With the article's history of frequent sock puppets as well as some similarities between these editors and old, now banned editors, I think it's very possible it is also the same person.DreamGuy (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, these editors are not sockpuppets of each other but do look somewhat like meat puppets, I don't even know if I would call them fully meatpuppets yet. Anyway, and administrator does have the right to exercise discretion when it comes to meatpuppets, hence the word "may". I believe the HA took the right steps in this case not blocking them. I personally think I use the one line out of WP:MEAT more than most clerks, but it still comes out that most editors are not blocked for such actions as they are really two different people, with two different opinions. It's the point where it becomes disruptive that we usually take action. In this case, edit wars do occur, and they are not 100% agreeing with each other, and they aren't causing a major disruption. I'm sorry if the version you wanted protected was not the one protected but if there is enough of a consensus (remember not everyone has to agree for a consensus), you can always call on the {{editprotected}} template to request that edit. I also looked back over the SPI you mentioned, and I don't see any behavioral matches to that sockpuppet, several factors going into the fact that they aren't the same. I hope this helps. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what DQ said. I usually only block meatpuppets if it's really flagrant - something like breaking 3RR or canvassing an AFD or something. These accounts clearly are two different people, and I'm really hesitant to take action against them. As a side note, I want to point out that Talk:Dissociative identity disorder is, for lack of a better term, a huge clusterfuck. 500k in edits in less than a month? Oh boy.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP is back

That same "outing" IP has done the same thing after the block ended: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. Let me know if it happens again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockmaster issue

User:Austereraj is the master in a case that you recently dealt with and which is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Austereraj/Archive. The master has just returned with another crappy contribution pushing his name without good cause or sourcing. Is there a long-term solution? This type of behaviour has been going on for ages now. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Another Scientology dispute

Would you take a look at Grant Cardone and issue whatever Scientology-related notices you see fit, if any? Both editors would appear to come within Remedy 5.1. Haven't talked for awhile, hope you are fine. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Banned user returns

Hi HelloAnnyong. It looks as though this user is still socking to evade their ban (see, in particular, this edit summary (quack, quack?)) and edit warring on the Resident Evil (video game) article, as well as making personal remarks (though not attacks) against User:OsirisV. I'm happy to re-open the sock case if you feel it's necessary, but I thought it might be somewhat more expedient to bring it to your attention. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's clearly them. I've taken care of this case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PorridgeGobbler

Hi I've left a note at the spi but basicly what I'm after is just advice. The history has involved previous blocks for socking where the unblock request said he wasnt to use other accounts. I'm not wanting you to do anything else but I'd like to know when it's appropriate to run a check user and when not just for future if it happened again would it then be or does there need to be a lot of history. Just would like to know for the future not just for this but anything. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI (actually MPI)

Did I post this correctly- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Computer_Guy_2 . I am wondering since it hasn't been reviewed, and thought maybe it was because I did not ask for a Checkuser (didn't think it was required). Thanks in advanceAceD (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your message was a bit confusing, but as I have already stated to one administrator I have no intent of even speaking with that editor again, much less engaging in any prohibited behavior. Further, no "OUTING" occured, by the letter of the policy and the spirit of it. I never posted anybody's "real name" or ANY other personal information, as defined by wikipedia. Further, even if I had, the at-best-partial-pseudonym was from a site linked and referenced on wikipedia by that editor- "unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". Moot, however, since I didn't.

Also, the SPI investigation was actually for meatpuppetry...so I don't know how effective the CheckUser tool will be. But I leave that to you guys who know best. Thanks, AceD (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One, two, three. Don't wikilawyer this one with the 'by the letter of the policy'. Pseudonym or not, you're inciting a riot. Don't do it again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think you have to 'wikilawyer' to convey that even if real information was posted here that this is the VERY EXCEPTION listed in the policy. The user is the one that linked and referenced that information, not this editor. On NUMEROUS occasions, no less. If there is some other intent in the policy that supersedes this then I suggest you (collectively, not individually) remove its explicit presence and meaning.

However, I will acknowledge your point about "inciting a riot" and recognize that it isn't the best way to go about toning down the rhetoric....in fact it likely produces quite the opposite. And even if I didn't, I have already told you I will certainly abide by your comment. AceD (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hi. Thanks for addressing the puppets at this investigation. Query -- you didn't block the sockmaster Jigsaw, although you blocked his puppet. They worked in tandem at one of the AfDs at issue (one !voting at the Bahram AfD, the other extending the Bahram AfD unilaterally as an independent editor, presumably to give the master more time to garner support). I would have thought that the master (Jigsaw) would warrant a block for that, and as that impacts the AfD !vote, I thought I would contact you in that regard. Many thanks for your consideration. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. Here's more. It seem that in the past Jigsawnovich actively solicited support -- on iranian.com -- for her efforts to keep wp articles from being deleted at AfD. And she is doing it now, vis-a-vis the current AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And ... we appear to have another newly created SPA -- Godsnephew--claiming knowledge now of the same unpublished article at the Bahram AfD that Jigsaw at the AfD claims to have written but not yet had published. This looks like clear socking or meatpuppetry, continuing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Godsnephew is likely a meatpuppet. Has anyone warned Jigsaw about off-Wiki canvassing? If not, she probably needs to be. As for the AFD, accounts made by socks like that can probably be marked with {{spa}}. Bahram Nouraei (rapper) isn't active enough right now to warrant protection, but let me know if it does. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My biggest concern is the ongoing AfDs, that are being impacted by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. What further can/should be said there, to flag the issue to the closing sysop, as to Jigsaw's many comments, and those of apparent socks and meats (if that is a word)? Just marking the acct with SPA is perhaps not strong enough under the circumstances, as there can be legitimate early editors (we all were one at one time), but the facts here suggest something of greater concern. I would think that given that Jig is a confirmed sockmaster, and confirmed as soliciting AfD !votes a public blog, and for indicating that she performs the service of writing wp articles, that she should be blocked as her puppet was -- am I correct? Also, if God is a likely meatpuppet, under the circumstances what is needed to have them blocked (with the appropriate entry at the ongoing AfD that they just left a comment at)? I don't think that the Bahram article should be protected -- but perhaps the AfD should be? Do we do that? Given the SPAs there, maybe that would address the issue a bit for future postings at least. Many thanks for your time -- sorry to trouble you on a weekend.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

She socked once, so an indef block based on that is a little harsh. And I'm not really one to block people for off-Wiki canvassing, though some other admins are. If she's been warned of it and continues to flagrantly do it, that's another story - but I'd need to see sufficient evidence to support a block in that case. Anyway, I've tagged the Bahram AFD with {{Not a ballot}}, so the closing admin should at least be aware of what's going on. We really only protect AFDs in extenuating circumstances, of which this is not. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Update -- God just joined the AfD as well. With a Strong Keep !vote supporting Jigsaw's position. And -- mirroring Jisaw's statement -- claiming knowledge of an as-yet-unpublished article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cusop Dingle

I suppose you couldn't do anything else in closing this but from my personal point of view it's less than satisfactory. You wrote "I don't know if it's Dingle or not". Well, I do know, and it isn't, and I said so. FL launched this SPI because they didn't like my edits to Christian Concern, and even in the SPI report FL admits that "I'd be happy to withdraw this SPI". So now I'm left with this vague insinuation hanging over me, which CU would have resolved. Not happy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well, I didn't take any action on it. Sometimes cases end like this, i.e. where no action is taken. What sort of solution would make you happy? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I was hoping for one of those friendly {{unrelated}}. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That template is only used when a checkuser has been run. Because one hasn't been done in this case, we won't use it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I realise that, and as a result I am left under a cloud of suspicion. And that's why I'm not happy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Kačaniklić

Hello. You just G5'd the article Alexander Kačaniklić created by a blocked sock. Would it be possible for you to copypaste the latest revision to my userspace, as the subject is notable, and I'd like a basis from which to re-create a properly sourced clean version. AFAIK, there wasn't any copyvio material left in it. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. See User:Struway2/Alexander Kačaniklić. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Updates at SPI

Herro prease. It looks like bot updates at SPI might have stopped until next week(?!). Please tell me I'm wrong. I realize there's a backlog, and of course I'll wait my turn for the SPI I posted. I didn't know if the post would be worthwhile in a week, though. Any advice? Should I list manually? Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Δ is on strike. Amalthea threw together a backend for us, though, so we'll still be handling the cases - the frontpage just might not update. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I was addlepated with bepuzzlement. あんがと。JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

「あんがと」とはなんだろう。「ありがとう」の俗語？ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

そう。早くて落な会話でよく聞かれる表現。もしかして茨城弁？「Thankya」とだいたい一緒かな。 JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ぜんぜん関係ないんだけど、is there any better way than MfD to resolve a pretty obvious problem like this? It's somewhere between WP:FAKEARTICLE and {{db-g11}}. If I missed a WP:SPEEDY criterion, just trout me with it. 突然でごめん。

That's a username violation. Take it to WP:UAA. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

お世話になりました。Angato again! JFHJr (㊟) 04:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editorukzn

Thanks. I think WP:ROPE is a reasonable approach. I'm watching the articles closely, and reverting / NPOVing any promotional-sounding material. So far, Joyceprof has been dropping in a bit of that, but has mainly been making good edits. Even the promotional-sounding stuff is starting to contain solid sources, so I've been able to rewrite it into something more neutral and factual.

I should add that the actions of these editors, in their latest incarnation, have drastically improved the Malegapuru William Makgoba article, which had devolved into a bit of an attack page full of concerning violations of WP:BIO. I think there's hope yet. -Kieran (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

8digits and his/her sock Nexia asx

Just curious, since I'm unfamiliar with this process - I see that you've blocked Nexia asx as a confirmed sock of 8digits. The sock was used to deliberately circumvent 8digit's 3RR block and edit the article in question. As far as I can see, no action has been taken to either extend the block of 8digits or warn him/her about what happened. Is that standard procedure, or is something still to come? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

8digits is already blocked, but you're right, I should have left them a note. I just did that. And as for extending their block, I'm going to assume a little good faith on this one. Nexia asx is not a new account, by the way - it's been around since May 2010. If another new account shows up, list it and we'll extend 8digits' block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. It seems that you've got quite a bit of faith assuming good faith... when you're warned (twice) about reverts, violate the 3RR anyway, get blocked, and then immediately use another account you happen to have lying around to circumvent the block, it's a little hard to see how that can be unintentional. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been burned before by blocking people prematurely, so yes, I err on the side of caution. They're down to one account now, but relist if there are new accounts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please reopen SPI

Please reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Certifiedallergist, check the background of the added IPs and reply to the suggestions for a block or topic ban for Certifiedallergist. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked two of those IPs. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Xebulon

Hi. Could you please have a look at this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon? I would appreciate your opinion, since you were involved in this case before. Regards, Grandmaster 19:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you see TNX's comment on there? I'm disinclined to block those accounts - but if someone else wants to, more power to them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand TNX's frustration, but I also see that previous socks managed to evade repeated checks, and the last bunch of socks was caught only after the 3rd CU. I really wonder how they do that. But do you think that there's nothing wrong with what's going with the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, and all the new accounts that pop up out of nowhere and join edit warring are genuine new users? Grandmaster 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to pass judgment on what's going on in that article. Maybe this is a better discussion for the folks at WP:AE, since that article falls under the AA2 restriction. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Grandmaster 08:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Another outing IP

I'm back on your talk page, so you know what that means: [3], [4].

I notice something slightly different this time. The IP only refers to Neurorel, not Edgeform. It seems to me that it makes zero sense that either Neurorel or Edgeform would do this. Rather, it looks like the IP realizes that Edgeform has been blocked and now is pushing to have Neurorel blocked. Of course the SPI found that they all geolocate together, and there is clearly a pattern of interest in the same subjects, but I really think that this behavioral pattern is only consistent with someone other than Neurorel or Edgeform trying to get those accounts blocked, out of some odd agenda growing out of the research areas (probably autism) associated with that San Diego lab. On this basis, I think that the SPI decision to block Edgeform needs to be re-assessed. What do you think of an unblock? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Supposing that's Edgeform making those edits, they're certainly not justifying an unblock by repeatedly outing the person. Nothing says "I want to edit again" like breaking one of Wiki's cardinal rules. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, it doesn't make sense that Edgeform would be "repeatedly outing the person" if Edgeform were a sock of Neurorel. One would have to imagine a trolling plot of monumental proportions, and that doesn't fit with what I've been seeing over time. Please don't take this the wrong way: you've been very helpful throughout this entire process, and I recognize that you have more experience with these kinds of user issues than I do. But I'm just not comfortable with letting the block stand, and I would like to get some more opinions. Therefore, I'm going to open a thread at WP:AN, and ask for some additional eyes on the question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear HelloAnnyong,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalaua

I see you just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalaua. Unfortunately it looks like this idiot has immediately registered a new account Ranuralip (talk · contribs). What to do about this? Should I re-open the existing SPI, or wait for it to be archived then open a new one? Or will you simply block him/her? Thanks in advance. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Check the case page; I've handled this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks for the speedy response. Keep up the good work! --Biker Biker (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mackemfixer again

Some days I reported an IP used by Mackemfixer at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mackemfixer. You closed the case and block the IP. Now we have Argcontrib, a new user that continues things right were the IP left them (clearly, a block evasion), but the SPI is not archived yet. How do I report it then? Should I wait for the archive and report again then, add the new info to the page and change the status back to open, generate a new page at "Mackemfixer (second)" or something like that), or just tell you here? Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPI and list the case as you did before. It'll open a new one on that same page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the basis of the evidence I have put on the SPI page I suggest un-blocking the IP. Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

I am not Mackemfixer. Please look into this. Argcontrib (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Savatage Gutter Ballet requesting unblock

Hi, can you have a look at User talk:Savatage Gutter Ballet when you have time? They are proclaiming their innocence. The edits themselves don't appear incriminating, although I have no idea what checkuser may have revealed. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Elockid confirmed that that account was The Sisser. Still, I've relisted the SPI case to double confirm. I'd say keep an eye on that case page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks very much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice

User:Cammyayrutd, User:Cammy ayr utd1910 & User:Cammyaufc1910 There is no evidence of disruption other than recreating a deleted article on a new account but seems highly likely with editing of Ayr United article and similar names they are the same account. Others appear stale I'm assuming good faith that maybe he was looked out of the other accounts but would like to know if it should be reported fully or if there is anything i should be using to advice him.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The latter two accounts haven't edited in half a year. Open a case if they become active or something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

no problem that was kind of what I was hoping you would say. He's not disruptive nor do I think he will be. I just wanted to make sure by leaving it I wasnt going to cause a problem. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Query, User:Penang100

Hello, I was just wondering if it is normal for an indefblocked username to still be manipulating his talk page under his username that is indefblocked. This makes me think such a user can also do this elsewhere. Can you check it or something? No need to get back to me at all- just dropping you a line since you indefblocked this guy.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've modified their block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Cosmos416

I am unsure where is the appropriate page for comment.

I submitted the case for investigation after checking the history of the Anglo-Indian when concerns were raised that two users had entered the debate. During this I noticed the evidence that I presented. I decided to refer the issue to those with more experience to resolve. I bear no emnity toward HonestopL. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thankyou. Romper (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Picker78/Archive

Hey HelloAnnyong, I just blocked IP 91.140.87.114. Can you figure out a range block? Or should I just semi-protect their favorite targets? Drmies (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be 91.140.0.0/16, but I don't think there's enough disruption to warrant it. Also consider that there are other edits on that range, so you'd be hitting a lot of false positives. If they edit a few more times perhaps we can narrow it down. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You're dropping knowledge, HelloAnnyong. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I'm not about to go apply a range block anywhere, since I just don't have the skills to figure out the collateral damage, but I am keeping my eye on those pages. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A help is needed

Hello. I need a help from an admin. There was a long editwarring over an article, and almost all participants of it were confirmed as sockpuppets of a sockmaster. And there is a user (who I'm not sure is a sockpuppet) but who permanently supports all that sockpuppets, receives advice from them, supports their editwarring with an agressive manner and oftenly attacks me any time backing that sockpuppets (I collected a lot of evidence). Are there any rules of Wikipedia regulating such a behaviour when a confirmed user permanently supports a sockmaster? Thank you in advance! Gazifikator (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

...and what article are we talking about? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

a very specific topic, Tamara Toumanova (ballerina). Gazifikator (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean meatpuppetry. It's sort of a grey area - if they're editing on behalf of the account, i.e. under their direct orders, that's not really allowed. But if they just happen to have the same opinion, then there's not much we can do about that. Just based on a look at their edits, I'm not really sure there's even a meatpuppetry connection; their edits are a little too different, I think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Gazifikator (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, HelloAnnyong! You might already be aware of this, but a checkuser has confirmed that Gazifikator is a sockmaster of several accounts, editing the article on Toumanova. Please, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator/Archive#29 December 2011. Best regards, Antique Rose — Drop me a line 11:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the results there? At the time the CUs didn't see much of a reason to block him, so.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Rast5 was blocked indefinitely [5] and Gazifikator got a 2 week block [6]. In nuce, the CU obviously did see a reason to block Gazifikator. Or am I mistaken? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 16:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we blocked one and left the other unblocked, so the editor was only using one account. Since those initial blocks they haven't socked further, and I'm not going to retroactively block them on double jeopardy grounds or something. I don't know if you're trying to get this editor blocked for sockpuppeting as a way of getting around a content dispute or what, but it's not going to happen. Not without evidence of new socking. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, at the moment I have no intention of getting Gazifikator blocked. The reason for me commenting was Gazifikator's blatant denial of having used socks, and charging me with "silly accusations". From what I have read at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator/Archive Gazifikator is to be considered a sockmaster [7]. Since Gazifikator has been using sock accounts, it's a good idea to be observant of the account in question. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 16:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You accused me of being user Shulyatikov, it was and is a silly accusation [8] (see the result [9]). You're wikistalking not only me (by posting the same link to CU archive at any page I'm making a comment or asking a question), but you're also wikistalking that user just because he/she does not support your POV (you're calling him a "suspected sock" [10], making disruptive comments [11][12]). Is it a civil behaviour? Gazifikator (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this conversation is done now. You'll not be fighting this out on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Block of 218.250.159.25

Hello,

You recently blocked 218.250.159.25 based on discussions here. As the sockmaster's data is stale, the past few blocks have largely been on behavioural grounds. (Am I reading this right?) Is it customary on Wikipedia to do blocks like this, even when the data is so old? (The IP also claims not be Instantnood in this diff.)

In my opinion, the problem with IP editors from Hong Kong participating in Taiwan-related discussions (that's what I check, though I understand there have also been issues with Hong Kong-related discussions) is the large amount of drive-by sock/meatpuppets, not a single IP editor. I find 218.250.159.25 somewhat difficult to work with and exhibiting a bit of WP:IDHT, but if they are to be blocked, shouldn't it be done for disruption and after warnings?

I find this to be particularly important, because there has been concerns (on the SPI page, for example) that some editors are using SPIs on Instantnood to silence those they disagree with. I do wish there was a better way to deal with all the socking and meatpuppeting surrounding the contentious issue, but blocking IP editors who aren't obviously socking and whose behaviour on its own does not rise to the level of being blockable doesn't seem to be the solution... :/

If you had other considerations for blocking, would you mind sharing them? Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the additional ping—I should note that I'm currently engaged in a content dispute with the editor at this AfD and the related discussions. wctaiwan (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what? Yes, this is a thing we do. Blocks can definitely be issued on behavioral grounds. In this case, however, a checkuser took extraordinary measures and pointed out that that IP was likely being controlled by an IP that we blocked a month back for similar actions. So I'm going to stand by my block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the reply. wctaiwan (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I also linked the IPs via identical diffs to confirmed name sock accounts SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hi HelloAnnyong, I'm not sure what the correct procedure for this is. I noticed that new IP address 147.8.102.172 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) has a 54% (7 of 13) overlap in common edit areas to 218.250.159.25 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), which you blocked. Both IP addresses geolocate to Hong Kong ISPs. Would it be appropriate to block this IP address as well? Evidence here. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Blocked for a week. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've actually pushed this over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood#22 February 2012, there's more IP addresses involved here. The 147 range is for a Hong Kong university, which complicates things. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalyan97

Any reason not to block Kalyan97? He's only here to promote someone who might even be himself. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a sockpuppet case, not a case about his promotional efforts. It was their first offense, so I'm willing to let the master go with a warning for now. If it happens again of course we'll look at a block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok I guess although setting up a sock to create a new article which was deleted as copyvio, and then trying to get around that by creating it again with the sock but with a lowercase last name suggests a problem. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Pocket Full of Sunshine

One thing to note: User:A Pocket Full of Sunshine isn't blocked. Just thought I'd mention that Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. First time offense, and not particularly offensive edits. Relist if they do it again and I'll deal with it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)