User talk:Vanjagenije

Main Articles Files Userboxes Awards Tools News 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! Vanjagenije (talk)

Quick Questions about SPI

Hi Vanjagenije, I have some quick questions about what I consider a frivolous SPI filed against me.

• 1) How long does the CheckUser process take, and is there any way to make a request to expedite it?
• 2) What remedies are available to the accused to wipe the slate clean after being found innocent? I.e. Renaming the case to any actual identified sock instead of the accused who has been found innocent?
• 3) And regardless of whether there are any such remedies, how can I prevent what I consider an editor who is just out to pin something/anything on me, from abusing SPI again against me ESPECIALLY if the answer to #2 is that every accusation remains permanent even after whoever's being picked on is found innocent?

Thanks in advance for your time and answer. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zhanzhao: Sorry for not answering more quickly, I was away for three days. I believe your question No. 1 is obsolete now. Regarding your second question, I don't really understand your concern. Why would it bother you if the case in which you was fond innocent is kept? You now, courts keep records of all the cases; even if the accused is fond innocent, the documents are not destroyed, but kept. That is normal procedure, and I do not see any problem with it. Regarding your third question, you should not try to prevent other users to accuse you because "you consider" they have something against you. There are SPI clerks and administrators whose job is to protect SPI from abuse. IF someone makes several accusations against other editors without proper evidence, he may be forbidden by SPI clerks to fill cases, but your case is not of such nature. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, by wiping the slate clean, my question was not to delete the case, but more importantly to rename it to whoever was indeed found socking at the page. The outcome was of the CU was not known yet, but, apparently DoRB found something about the IP but he declined to explain. But I'll leave it at that. Unfortunately even after the 2nd SPI that found me innocent, OccultZone has now decided to move it to ANI. I'm just fed up, frankly. But I'm not gonna give in just cos I'm being bullied, as a matter of principle. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zhanzhao: Actually, no one was found guilty of sockpuppetry in that case. DoRB is prevented by Wikipedia policies to publicly comments connections between named accounts and IPs (for privacy reasons). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. And thanks for your reply. I'm having a tough time now from being harrassed, and your reply is one of the better things I've seen in a while here. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2

Regarding this, why didn't you give Elockid a good chance to reply to me on that? Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Sorry, I didn't think of that as a question. Anyway, I de-archived the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devbulgames

After noticing a new sock, Zapadenpark, and looking at some deleted revisions of articles, I found out that this sockpuppeter has been going at it since 2012. The original account is Bulgames and there is an SPI for him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bulgames. Can you move the new case over to the old case? The last time I did some wannabe clerking, I kind of made a mess. Thanks! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: I'm not sure I follow you. What is the "old case", and what is the "new case"? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devbulgames is the new case filed a few days ago. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bulgames is the old case from 2012. So the archive for Devbulgames should be moved to Bulgames. Sorry if I wasn't clear. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: You are the administrator, and I'm not. You can merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devbulgames into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bulgames performing the history merge. I can help you to clean up the mess after you merge them. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, histmerge... one of the few admin things I don't do... I copy/pasted the archive over. My apologies if I made a mess. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: Well, it's OK that way, I believe. The history is not so important anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Histmerge gives me a headache every time I try to read the instructions. It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me and I worry that I'll make a mess of it. I make enough messes already. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Child sexual abuse

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Child sexual abuse. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Email

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

George Zabelka deletion page

Chidiumeano (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Dear Vanjagenije

Reference to this, the author wrote this, which was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 17th January 2015 but no response yet:

In reference to: George Benedict Zabelka (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.donehealth.com/new-best-george-benedict-zabelka.html)

I hereby affirm that I, Emmanuel Charles McCarthy am the creator sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached text written about George Zabelka in the attached file (George Zabelka Bio for Wiki [06]). I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy] [Author and Writer] [17 January 2015] Chidiumeano (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chidiumeano: Ok, you don't have to post the permission on my talk page. I just informed you that your article was copyright infringement, otherwise I have nothing to do with it. If the permission is sent to the WP:OTRS team, it should be OK to use the material on Wikipedia. If you re-create the article, put this code: {{OTRS pending}} on the talk page of the article, so that everybody knows that the permission is sent. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Ok thanks.Chidiumeano (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, u pravu si, ne bih da se raspravljam na ovaj veliki praznik. Samo bih ti porucio ovo [1], a nek ti to bude neka vodilja. Pozdrav.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kindredwiki

I disagree that the accounts were "spamming". Did you not read my comment? What evidence exists for it? I agree that their usernames were invalid. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: What exactly do you expect me to do? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You stated that the accounts were blocked partly for spamming. Therefore, you must have had reason to suspect that spamming was occurring. What indicates the spamming? What I saw was two company accounts who declared their COI and made generally reasonable edits. What did you see differently? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: Ok, sorry, they were not spamming. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily indefinitely blocked

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)

quick

Ok, but take a decision, I will be away from computer for few days. I've provide enough evidences. But you're not an admin as well, so why are you holding the investigation? Has an autopatroller the right to do so?--115ash^→(☏) 13:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@115ash: I am a WP:SPI Clerk, so it is my job to work at the SPI. Anybody can comment at the SPI, but only clerks and checkusers may change the status of the case. You provided zero evidence of CosmicEmperor being involved in sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? No evidence? Are you joking? How coul you be clerk? Could you show anything to demonstrate that you possess the right to change the case? Thanks --115ash^→(☏) 14:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've just seen the WP:SPI/C. But you can't tell me that I haven't give any evidences.--115ash^→(☏) 14:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@115ash: Like I said, nothing you wrote at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicEmperor provides any evidence of CosmicEmperor being connected to either Brown American or Universal tiger. I'm starting to believe that this is some kind of personal attack against CosmicEmperor, and I'm warning you not to use the SPI process for attacking other users without evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I got involved in an edit war with User:115ash in Bengali people . After that both of us were warned by Ged UK . Then I edited the talk page but not the main page as I saw 115ash was blocked for 48 hours . I have decided not to edit that page for my own safety . I was practicing using Twinkle and when I saw Brown American copying my signature I decided to warn him using TW which I used extensively in my old account page LoverBoyInGarden . I personally don't care if anyone writes wrong things on 115ash's talk page or vandalizes his page .It was mainly because he copied my signature . How he did that ? For that i have filed a sockpuppet investigation against a sockmaster who is capable of vandalizing Wikipedia .--Cosmic Emperor (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

CU endorsements

Hi Vanjagenije, I appreciate all your hard work at SPI. However, I've noticed that you sometimes endorse a CU without giving any reason. Could you please explain why you're endorsing in the future? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK, no problem. I'll explain every endorsement in the future. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And yet antoher one to add to our endless sadman sockpuppets!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ashiqaligg This one makes it VERY obvious even by recreating the exact pages that were deleted! Wgolf (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I had no choice but to oppose for being wrongly accused

Sir , This time i didn't do it. you may block this account but please go through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZORDANLIGHTER#Shuar -- WRONGLY ACCUSED THIS TIME (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

ZORDANLIGHTER created all those accounts to target CosmicEmperor .In his talk page , he is blaming LanguageXpert.He should be blocked from editing his own talk page as he is constantly pinging Check Users and wasting their valuable time.--ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Query

I have a gut feeling; that all of them are not ZORDANLIGHTER . We need @DoRD: 's view, as everybody is tagged for one S-Master . DoRD's Check User investigation results are not conclusive about the S-Master ----- according to his statement :-(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) ----- .The only confirmed case is WRONGLY ACCUSED THIS TIME . There is a Invisible Man here who seems to be more clever than ZORDANLIGHTER. Till then, please don't close the case . Any way it's up to you to take the Final decision--CosmicEmperor (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@CosmicEmperor: It was Mike V who tagged زوردانلگهتر, ਬਬਿਤਾ ਅਰੋਰਾ and কসমিক এম্পারার as socks of Undertrialryryr. I just followed him and tagged others (ДфтпгфпуЧзуке, หทหฟพทฟก, etc.) as the socks of the same master. Based on the behavior, I think they are all Undertrialryryr, but, of course, I can't be sure. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I will try to detect the languages through google translate , as their software can detect language.Then I will translate all the names and comments. Not here , but on the talk page of SPI ZORDANLIGHTER --CosmicEmperor (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Something you said...

...To Flyer22 was that "You are not allowed to revert other user more than three times just because you believe he is a sockpuppet of blocked user."

At Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions, it says that "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is not counted toward 3RR.

For your information. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Yes, but there is great difference between a "sockpuppet of banned user" and a "user whom I believe is a sockpuppet of banned user". You may not revert other user's edits more than three times just because you believe he's a sockpuppet. He has to be proven a sockpuppet before you are free to revert him. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that detail in the guideline. If a blocked person creates a sockpuppet, he is immediately a "sockpuppet of a blocked user", with or without an investigation into the matter. I would not like to do things your way and give the block-evading person all the time that it takes for a sockpuppet case to conclude, letting that person disrupt Wikipedia for a few days. I would much rather protect the encyclopedia by repeatedly reverting the sock as necessary, all with the understanding that the sock will soon be blocked pending the conclusion of the SPI case. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I agree that a sock is a sock as soon as he creates an account. But, I do not agree that you yourself can know who is a sock and who is not immediately, without discussing the matter with other users. Sometimes socking is obvious, but in this particular case it was not obvious at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with this and your statement that triggered this discussion. Of course you can know who is a sock without discussing the matter with other users. CUs, admins, and clerks do not have a monopoly on common sense. If 2.7.4.34 starts editing after 2.7.4.31 is blocked I don't need to run to another editor to tell me that's a sock. Same thing goes for FluffyDuffy56 taking over for FluffyDuffy54, or a new editor signing with another editor's signature (as I came across yesterday), or a myriad of other ways experienced editors can tell they're dealing with a sock. In my experience, the 3RR sock exemption follows the vandalism sock exemption. If, after given an explanation, any uninvolved well-intentioned editor can see there's socking going on with a minimum of effort, the exemption applies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: That is exactly what I said above: Sometimes, socking is obvious. In those cases it is OK to revert sockpuppet's edits. Sometimes, socking is not obvious. In those cases it is not OK to revert. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that a non-CU can immediately tell XYZ is a sock of ABC upon account creation. But non-CU's can tell immediately after the first edit in some cases. You need to qualify and carefully explain your statements when you're working at SPI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Supposed WP:3RR violation

Vanjagenije, will you revert this to allow me to reply to you there, on the record? I did not break the WP:3RR rule. This is not only because I did not revert more than three times (I reverted twice; a WP:Dummy edit is not a revert), but because reverting WP:Blocked or WP:Banned editors is a WP:3RR exemption. WP:Blocked does not simply apply to the account(s); it applies to the person; same goes for WP:Banned. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see that Binksternet replied to you about this above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: There is no need to de-archive the page because of that. We can discuss it here. As I said above, you should not revert other user's edits just because you believe him being a sockpuppet, you have to be sure that he is a sockpuppet, and in this case, you couldn't be sure. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a need to de-archive since you accused me of breaking the WP:3RR rule when I did not, and when you are misapplying the WP:3RR policy, which will be believed by less experienced editors. I knew that the editor in question was a WP:Sockpuppet; an editor would have to be an idiot not to know that he is a WP:Sockpuppet. Editors (including WP:Administrators) revert obvious WP:Sockpuppets on the basis that they are WP:Sockpuppets all the time. I am one of those editors. If you do not de-archive the case so that I can set this record straight, I will make an even bigger deal out of this by taking this matter to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: I apologize, you did not brake the WP:3RR because you reverted three times, not four. I did not see that your fourth edit was not a revert. But, I will not de-archive the SPI case, as the SPI is not a place to discuss 3RR or anything else except sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

At the same time of your "19:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)" comment, I took this matter to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, like I stated above, I reverted that WP:Sockpuppet two times. A WP:Dummy edit is not a revert. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the big fuss I made here, in a section that was closed down in two different spots, I did get suggestions via email that I should just reply in the archive since editors (not just WP:Administrators) are replying in the archive of this other WP:Sockpuppet investigation. If it's the case that I am allowed to do that, then having known that obviously would have been a good thing days ago. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are CUs leaving info in an archive rather than necessitating the opening of a new report...and regular editors are responding there. Not a good precedent. Clerks and CUs are the only ones that should comment in an archive. Really, there is no need...nothing is being held over your head about it. Water under the bridge.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: As I know, it is not good practice to leave comments at the archives, and the comment you cited was later removed [2]. Anyway, I don't care if you edit the archive, I will certainly not make any reaction to that. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that Berean Hunter noted the inappropriateness of the non-CUs leaving comments there, and that DoRD took action on the matter. This clears up things for those who were under the impression that commenting in WP:Sockpuppet archives is generally fine. That stated, I feel like a snitch in this regard, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely feel like a snitch now. Anyway, I am done discussing this matter. Thanks to all who helped sort my feelings on WP:3RR and wanting to clarify things. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

• @RedPanda25: Thank you very much. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SPI:Factocop

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

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

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

Hello,

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 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)