Its not vandalism its referred to as champions league like "oh wicked its Tuesday, that means there's Champions League tonight". No one in thier right minds would refer to it as "The Champions League" thats disgusting. Open it for editing and change it back to how it should be you friggin nerd
Its not vandalism its referred to as champions league like "oh wicked its Tuesday, that means there's Champions League tonight". No one in thier right minds would refer to it as "The Champions League" thats disgusting. Open it for editing and change it back to how it should be you friggin nerd <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.150.182.34|95.150.182.34]] ([[User talk:95.150.182.34|talk]]) 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Hello, Tiptoety. I suspect that RJR3333 (talk·contribs) and ECayce187 (talk·contribs) are one and the same, and I've stated as much on ECayce187's talk page. As you can see, he has yet to respond to the matter, and has instead continued editing. In addition to what I stated there about their focus on age 16, they also favor the avert.org source; compare this to this edit. I'm not sure, however, that my evidence is enough to start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation; furthermore, the WP:CheckUser data is likely to come back stale. So since you, MuZemike and DeltaQuad were involved in the RJR3333 WP:Sockpuppet cases, I'm asking if one or all of you wouldn't mind looking into this latest case. I know that I mentioned the stale factor, but perhaps one of you have some saved data regarding the RJR3333 account? Or maybe Alison, who was the last person thus far to block the RJR3333 account, does? Flyer22 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tiptoety. In my above reply, I thought about mentioning that you'd recently interacted with ECayce187. And before I read your reply, I was about to ask Dougweller if he wouldn't mind looking into this case (in addition to you or the others I pinged above). I had somehow overlooked or forgotten that he is also a WP:CheckUser. To my knowledge, he hasn't interacted with the RJR333 account, but perhaps he's interacted with one or more of RJR333's confirmed and/or suspected WP:Sockpuppets. Anyway, as you know, data is sometimes kept on prolific WP:Sockpuppets, which is what I imagine keeps getting User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte caught. For example, Alison (because of my suspicion and another person's help via email) recently caught him WP:Sockpuppeting as User:Yev Yev. And the User:Ferberson account was very recently globally blocked. The more ECayce187 edits and the more he ignores the comment I left on his talk about him being RJR333, as well as this discussion, the more convinced I am that he is RJR3333. I don't care if he has matured into a better editor; I notice the same type of sloppiness in his editing that I identified in RJR3333's editing, and RJR3333 was indefinitely blocked for valid reasons. If he has truly matured into a better editor, then he should appeal his block via the proper means. Either that, or edit in areas where he will not be recognized. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dougweller. A lot of Wikipedia editors use two dashes in front of their signatures, but, when it comes to WP:Sockpuppet investigations, signature similarities can be evidence. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After this edit to the 16 (number) article, nothing can convince me that ECayce187 is not RJR3333, and I've stated so on ECayce187's talk page. I pointed to the 16 (number) article above, and that article is indeed one of RJR3333's favorite articles. And, although I pointed to that article on ECayce18's talk page before he edited that article, I don't think that I'm the one who made him aware of that article. Even if he had only become aware of that article because of me, that still points to the fact that he ignored the WP:Sockpuppet query on his talk page, which is suspicious. I reiterate, however, that ECayce187 is RJR3333. It was previously the case that RJR3333 couldn't resist returning to the 16 (number) article. And that still holds true now. What other editor would focus so much time on that specific part of the article? Furthermore, RJR3333 repeatedly returned to edit the 15 (number) article. ECayce187 recently edited that article.
Thanks, Euryalus. Did you check for any WP:Sleepers? And, as I pondered above, what should I do if RJR3333 keeps WP:Sockpuppeting at these articles often? Just keep reverting? Keep reporting via WP:Sockpuppet investigations? Both? Ask a WP:CheckUser to keep an eye on these articles? I wouldn't want to keep bothering Tiptoety, you, or any other WP:CheckUser about this matter by going to you guys' talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to email me a list of the articles, I'll add them to my watchlist. Not bothered by talkpage messages either, whatever you prefer. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Euryalus. I'll either list them here or at your talk page. I don't think Tiptoety will mind if I list them here. Some are already noted above. I don't watch all of the articles that RJR3333 watches, so I'll mostly name the age of consent ones and ones that relate to that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, he asked to be unblocked a few minutes ago. That obviously should be done at his RJR3333 account or via email if talk page access is not reinstated for him at his RJR3333 account; it currently isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue posting here, though your quickest recourse will be to file a SPI. SPI gets a wider audience than my talk page and may get a quicker response. Tiptoetytalk04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just like coming to you or to Euryalus each time, it seems extremely repetitive and tiresome to start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation each time. And WP:Sockpuppet investigations often are not quick, especially when they want supposedly harder evidence instead of simply citing WP:Duck. Then again, reverting him each time is also repetitive and tiresome. Anyway, Euryalus and others, the main articles to watch on this matter are the aforementioned articles (above). He is currently editing as IP 108.192.73.8 and recently used Flyer1333 (talk·contribs) to mock me. PhilKnight, RJR3333 will never accept the WP:Standard offer; he never has, no matter what he states on that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Recently I've been unable to edit on WP, due to a open proxy block (IP 185.58.82.6), on 3 February and 12 March. This happens when I'm logged in, using my WP account, using my work internet connection that I've been using since 2013, and this only happened now, in this short period. According to this I ask a IP block exemption in order to be able to continue editing/ not being afected by sistematic blocks. Best regards. Rpo.castro (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rpo.castro, the proxy block was removed by another administrator, so you should be able to edit without issue. As such, I don't see a need for IP block exempt. Best, Tiptoetytalk05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My request was in order to prevent being affected by this blocks, instead of waiting a few days for each block until its withdraw. When the rpoxy block is active, how can I request IP block exemption, since I would be unable to edit pages, except my own talk page? best regards,Rpo.castro (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We generally do not grant the right preemptively and seeing as I believe it is unlikely that the block will be put back into affect anytime soon you should be able to edit without a problem. Additionally, it's my understanding that this is a work IP. As a matter of policy, we rarely grant users IPBE for the purpose of editing via an open proxy and given that you have other methods of editing (like from home), it's unlikely I would grant your request. Best, Tiptoetytalk20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another RJR3333 sock
Hi, Tiptoety. Per the discussion at the top of this page, you and other admins blocked some socks of the highly disruptive editor RJR3333 in Jan — Feb. It looks like PaulBustion88 is another. JRMillar and ECayce187 edited the most recently of the known socks, 31 Jan and 1 Feb. Not sure you can check from that, but there seems little doubt per WP:DUCK, so I've blocked them. Please see especially User:Flyer22's posts in this thread. It might be a good idea to check for further sleepers. Bishonen | talk11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Tiptoety and Bishonen, that's such an old account that it makes me wonder why it was never found before. Maybe the sporadic nature of the account caused it to read as stale? Furthermore, it's so old that it perhaps should be considered the master account. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go into why it flew under the radar for obvious reasons. That said, from a technical standpoint it could be considered the "master account" but from a practical standpoint, it would be silly to change everything over. Tiptoetytalk03:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tiptoety, thank you very much Flyer22, good work. I see the user has promised repeatedly never to sock again. Flyer, you linked me to where he said on User talk:FDR, as late as March 2015, "I have matured as an editor", "I agree to stop using more than one account", "I'll accept the standard offer approach and work on the Irish and Scots wikipedias for 6 months before coming back." So I guess there'll be more socks. I've got some time later, I could write up an SPI, not to ask for anything, as all is clear and up to date, but to have a record and make it simpler to ask for future CUs. Should I treat RJR3333 as master? Bishonen | talk09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Bishonen. Since the RJR3333 account has been treated as the master account all this time, it's probably best to continue to treat it as the master account. Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After all, the FDR account is significantly older than the RJR3333 account, but we've still treated the RJR3333 account as the master account. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I think what's more famous is essentially determined at the point the SPI is created. Tiptoety? Do you think I should create it as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FDR? Btw, for what it's worth, I've had an e-mail from PaulBustion stating that he's not user: Emyth. Maybe you have too. I dunno, but he'd have little enough reason to lie about it, as it can hardly make a difference to how hard-banned he is. Bishonen | talk11:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I would continue to file under RJR3333. If a clerk wants to go through the leg work of re-tagging, moving SPI cases and archives around they can. For the most part a "master account" is just a name. So long as the master represents the user's behavior and can serve as a baseline for those who are unfamiliar with the user, then it doesn't matter as much if it is the oldest account or not. Also, I have not received an email from either account. There is little to no possibility PaulBustion isn't RJR3333, the technical evidence is very telling here. Best, Tiptoetytalk15:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Time does fly, I think I'll have to do the SPI tomorrow or Monday. Not that it's a very big job, but still. I guess there's no great urgency now that Paul Bustion is busted. Bishonen | talk19:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Given the articles that Emyth has focused on, and the way he signs his username, here, here, and here, maybe Emyth is not RJR3333. Emyth doesn't use the two dashes. And in my experience, it has proven difficult for RJR3333 not to use two dashes when he signs his username. That second diff-link I provided in this post shows Emyth signing his username with the statement "All the best," right before the signature, which is uncharacteristic of RJR3333. I've also known RJR3333 to be honest about his additional WP:Sockpuppets and to not deny one once it has been confirmed by a WP:CheckUser as being tied to him. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, I personally would continue to use the name RJR3333 as the master account name, given its recognizability/notoriety. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
The Redirect Barnstar
Tiptoety, I hereby award you The Redirect Barnstar for taking the time to rename my user account and move all my associated user pages to pages with my new name. I've wanted this necessary rebranding for awhile now and I appreciate you assisting me in this endeavor. Thanks again for all your hard work! -- West Virginian (talk)17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiptoety, this is a bit of an unconventional request. You recently patrolled a redirect I created, and although I definitely don't meet the normal requirement of 50 non-redirect articles created, I was wondering if you could grant me the autopatrolled right because it gets quite annoying having legitimate notifications drowned out in a sea of "redirect patrolled" notifications, as seen to the right. I've currently created 131 redirects: [1]. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I will have to decline the request as that really isn't what autopatrol is created for. That said, you can change your notification settings in you preferences. Just uncheck the boxes on things you don't wish to be notified about. Hope that resolves the problem. Happy redirect creating! Tiptoetytalk04:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not vandalism its referred to as champions league like "oh wicked its Tuesday, that means there's Champions League tonight". No one in thier right minds would refer to it as "The Champions League" thats disgusting. Open it for editing and change it back to how it should be you friggin nerd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.182.34 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
