User talk:Cabayi: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Tsumikiria is a sockpuppet of Jorm: new section |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
::::::::I dont think that is a safe assumption. A person may only edit from work with one account and from home with another, and a check may show that they are using the same browser/OS combination and in the same general vicinity and along with behavior that may be sufficient to make a relationship "likely". And that would not show up in a past check. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 19:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)</small> |
::::::::I dont think that is a safe assumption. A person may only edit from work with one account and from home with another, and a check may show that they are using the same browser/OS combination and in the same general vicinity and along with behavior that may be sufficient to make a relationship "likely". And that would not show up in a past check. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 19:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)</small> |
||
{{od}} I don't want to get into the middle of this discussion, but I thought I'd share a few comments about checks for everyone's edification. It's true that sometimes checks of one account will turn up other accounts. However, many users use more than one range, and that makes it tougher to find everyone. If the CU is ''aware'' of the other ranges, they can check them separately, but that depends on the CU and how "thorough" they want to be. It can often be tedious and yield nothing, meaning a waste of time. If they are ''not'' aware, which is often the case, there's nothing more that can be done. I prefer not to share the technical characteristics of this case, but I can say that the reasons I ran the check were because Nableezy provided more evidence and because I had closed the year-old report with no comment, as they noted in the new report.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 20:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC) |
{{od}} I don't want to get into the middle of this discussion, but I thought I'd share a few comments about checks for everyone's edification. It's true that sometimes checks of one account will turn up other accounts. However, many users use more than one range, and that makes it tougher to find everyone. If the CU is ''aware'' of the other ranges, they can check them separately, but that depends on the CU and how "thorough" they want to be. It can often be tedious and yield nothing, meaning a waste of time. If they are ''not'' aware, which is often the case, there's nothing more that can be done. I prefer not to share the technical characteristics of this case, but I can say that the reasons I ran the check were because Nableezy provided more evidence and because I had closed the year-old report with no comment, as they noted in the new report.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 20:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Tsumikiria is a sockpuppet of Jorm == |
|||
re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jorm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jorm] |
|||
Cabayi, I'm confused. The update you posted says, ''"This case is being reviewed by Cabayi as part of the clerk training process."'' So, are you the trainee, or the trainer? If you are the trainee, who is your trainer? |
|||
Also, why is this case moved to an Archive folder before being investigated? That seems odd. Does that mean that you decided not to investigate it, or is it still under investigation? |
|||
In any event, please read the evidence that I provided. Tsumikiria and Jorm are not two people. Tsumikiria and Jorm are obviously the SAME person. Jorm said that HE was closing the conversation, and ONE MINUTE later Tsumikiria closed it. That is not possible without sockpuppetry. [[User:NCdave|NCdave]] ([[User talk:NCdave|talk]]) 13:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:13, 27 May 2019
|
vintage SPI
If you'd like to get involved in an SPI which is 9-10 years old, and has different conventions in the archive, I would suggest this. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 11:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Swaye Major
Can you help me create a biography for artist Swaye Major BrainL (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
NoCal SPI
I see the user was blocked based of CU, but I have some questions about your comment. You wrote Attack Ramon was recently active at the time of the last CU 01 February 2019 and didn't show up in the investigation. Why would that have mattered? nableezy - 22:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- No links, nonexistent SPIs... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Attack Ramon ?? Cabayi (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. nableezy - 17:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Let me flip the question back at you - why did you expect a different outcome now than in February? How could I justify asking the checkusers to re-run an investigation which had been recently run and while the same parties' records were still fresh? Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- You noticed that the user has in fact been blocked as a sock per CU findings, right? As far as a different outcome, the user in question was not checked in February. The only time Attack Ramon was listed was a year ago where it was archived without any investigation. There was no different outcome here, and using a past report that didnt even mention the account in question to attempt to close a current report still makes no sense to me and Id still like an answer as to why it would have mattered that a separate investigation where the account was not included did not find a connection to an account that was not mentioned. nableezy - 17:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, once you linked to the SPI I was aware of its outcome. So, what is it you actually want? A lesson in how to be wrong? To harangue me for having been wrong? Either way I see no constructive point in prolonging this conversation. Cabayi (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, I was not haranguing you, and Im sorry if thats what you feel that I was doing here. What I wanted was an answer to the original question, why you thought a report on an account that had not been previously checked should be closed due to other accounts having been checked previously. Im really just looking for what the basis was for closing it there was, as the stated reason doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. nableezy - 05:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not every account checked is explicitly named in the request or the report - how would sleepers be uncovered otherwise? A CU took place while AR was recently active. If using the same IP, device, browser I'd have expected him to show up when looking at the traits of socks associated with the master.
- I can only assume that AR did something more NoCal100-ish, or used a toolset more closely related to the master between Feb & May. Cabayi (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I dont think that is a safe assumption. A person may only edit from work with one account and from home with another, and a check may show that they are using the same browser/OS combination and in the same general vicinity and along with behavior that may be sufficient to make a relationship "likely". And that would not show up in a past check. nableezy - 19:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, I was not haranguing you, and Im sorry if thats what you feel that I was doing here. What I wanted was an answer to the original question, why you thought a report on an account that had not been previously checked should be closed due to other accounts having been checked previously. Im really just looking for what the basis was for closing it there was, as the stated reason doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. nableezy - 05:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, once you linked to the SPI I was aware of its outcome. So, what is it you actually want? A lesson in how to be wrong? To harangue me for having been wrong? Either way I see no constructive point in prolonging this conversation. Cabayi (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- You noticed that the user has in fact been blocked as a sock per CU findings, right? As far as a different outcome, the user in question was not checked in February. The only time Attack Ramon was listed was a year ago where it was archived without any investigation. There was no different outcome here, and using a past report that didnt even mention the account in question to attempt to close a current report still makes no sense to me and Id still like an answer as to why it would have mattered that a separate investigation where the account was not included did not find a connection to an account that was not mentioned. nableezy - 17:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Let me flip the question back at you - why did you expect a different outcome now than in February? How could I justify asking the checkusers to re-run an investigation which had been recently run and while the same parties' records were still fresh? Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. nableezy - 17:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to get into the middle of this discussion, but I thought I'd share a few comments about checks for everyone's edification. It's true that sometimes checks of one account will turn up other accounts. However, many users use more than one range, and that makes it tougher to find everyone. If the CU is aware of the other ranges, they can check them separately, but that depends on the CU and how "thorough" they want to be. It can often be tedious and yield nothing, meaning a waste of time. If they are not aware, which is often the case, there's nothing more that can be done. I prefer not to share the technical characteristics of this case, but I can say that the reasons I ran the check were because Nableezy provided more evidence and because I had closed the year-old report with no comment, as they noted in the new report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)