User talk:HelloAnnyong

Something to say? Add a new thread.

archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10

User:Lagoo sab

Hi. Because of serious concerns, I would like to add User:Jrkso and User:Kaddoo to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab file, if you do not mind. All users have the same field of interest, the same writing style, they edit the same articles, and - as far as I can tell - they never show up at the same time. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, toss them on, but discuss why you're adding them on there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I did, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab. User:Kaddoo was suggested by User:Chartinael. He has explained that as well. But thank you anyway. Tajik (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Is User_talk:Who_am_I_a_sock_of? checkuser worthy?--v/r - TP 14:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Stanovc sock

[1]. This guy is unstoppable. Is there anything that can be done? He is quite disruptive, creating all kinds of nonsensical articles (e.g. Illyrian agriculture). Athenean (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI case with a checkuser so we can dig out other socks, and also possibly get an IP block here. As to garbage articles, they can be deleted as WP:CSD#G5, articles created by blocked editors. You could also put them up for AFD under that reason if you think there would be some level of controversy. I see a bunch of articles that could be deleted - Illyrians of ancient Italy, Illyrian States, etc. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Athenean (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:John lilburne block

Hi there. I've just lifted your block on the above account, per checkuser. It's really not a good idea to pre-emptively block an account just like that when there's already a WP:SPI case open, especially as this case wasn't nearly as WP:DUCKy as all that. Either way, we'll quickly get to the bottom of it, y'know? In this case, you blocked him in error & left an indelible mark on his block log - Alison ^❤ 03:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. As I explained on the SPI page, I found that edit he made to be a little bitey, but I was wrong. Anyway, I've informed the editor that he was unblocked and apologized for it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read it as bitey so much as a wry grin. He'd already known that adding him to the CU case was a waste of time (looking at his IPs is very telling indeed) and he was basically rolling his eyes. At least that's the way I read it. If it's okay to block sarky editors on WP, there are a couple of dozen I'd like to 'off' right now :) Anyways - onwards we go ... - Alison ^❤ 03:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for apologizing to the guy, unprompted. That's the proper thing to do - plenty of other admins out there would have walked away. So +1 for that! - Alison ^❤ 03:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks for restoring those. John lilburne (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Block Avoidance

Hi fellow editor, what report do I file when I think a user is reverting articles from his IP to avoid doing it from the logged in account to avoid blocking. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the latest set of edits on Jat people. An SPI case is fine, but I rejected the the request for a checkuser. See, according to the privacy policy, we're not allowed to reveal an editor's IP, so running a CU to say "Editor X is editing from 1.2.3.4" can't be done. The case is still open, however, and we can act based on behavior. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

IP continuing to follow me around and reverting my edits

This IP that followed me and another guy around and went back to the exact same location as Brein: [2]

After the investigation was closed he is now continuing to follow me around and reverting me:[3]

Even if you dont believe that its him, what am I supposed to do about this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The IPs do locate back to the same range and company, so my guess is that it's the same person, and their IP just changed. It does seem like you're being stalked a bit, so you could open a thread at WP:ANI about it. Or if they're being particularly belligerent on one page, you could list it at WP:AE and point out the trail. WP:ARBPIA says that there's a 1RR restriction in place for all Israel/Palestine articles, and I see three reversions on Rujm el-Hiri from that IP. But this isn't my fight to fight. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There has already been a ANI report, [4], so if you know that he violated the 1rr, why haven't you blocked him? he knows about the rule:[5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Your ANI thread was about linking this person to Chesdovi. Then you tried to link them to Breein1007. That's not the right way to go about it, accusing IPs of being other editors. All that I see here is that two IPs seem to have undone an inordinate amount of your edits. I'm not going to unilaterally block, particularly when there's an ArbCom enforcement in place. And I won't be used as your enforcer. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jake_Duncan

Did I do that right?--v/r - TP 16:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, seems it wasn't right and another clerk found/took care of it.--v/r - TP 16:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user - could their talkpage access be revoked?

Hi HA, you blocked User:Leila Fletcher back in November for being a vandal-only account and a sockpuppet of User:Chantessy. They are now using their talk page for the same behaviour that got them blocked - it's no big deal really, but seems a bit counterproductive. Could their talk page access be revoked? Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. So done. And I've redirected their talk page to the user page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another Stanovc sock

[6], a real no-brainer this one, he even refers to an article of his that was speedied. Athenean (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was quite obvious. Think it's worth a check for other accounts? Doesn't seem necessary to me, but.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to use sleeper accounts, just creates new ones as he goes. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue Water Navy

Regarding the issue recently brought to your attention on the Blue Water navy article, I was looking for advice. The talk discussion had gained a small level of consensus for content removal for a variety of reasons among myself and a small number of other editors, however a single user now objects to this and was reverting the edits made that reflected consensus. How should I deal with this without, frankly, engaging in an edit war? Thanks for any advice. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because there's some small consensus does not give you immunity from 3RR. If you think the editor is being tendentious and is deliberately not listening to the consensus then that's another story, but your ANI report didn't say that. Honestly that talk page is starting to descend into bad faith and ad hominem attacks, so that's not good either. Admins don't really get involved in content disputes; we have dispute resolution to handle that for us. I'd say you're looking at MedCab or RFC as viable options right now. Of course, as 3RR warnings have been issued, any further edit wars can be taken to WP:AN3. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DavidYork71 report becoming confused

Please see my latest note. We need to clean some things up there... --Jayron32 17:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So done. Self fail. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Mooch ass grassy ass! --Jayron32 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the CU was run on User:Screaminsista when it was thought to be a DavidYork71 sock, would it be advisable to run another one now that Otto4711 is thought to be the sockmaster, just to see if there are other socks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I endorsed the case for a check, so now it's up to a checkuser. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies - I might have messed the format up a bit for the latest one - thanks for fixing it all up folks SatuSuro 00:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec, @HelloAnnyong) Actually, unless I'm misreading things, it looks like you endorsed the new DavidYork71 sock for a CU check, which Alison did, but marked the Otto4711 open case to be closed [7]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not. I've endorsed the Otto4711 case for a relist; we'll let the CUs decide if it's necessary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It may turn out to have been totally unnecessary, but I think it's worth doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Poland Spring

About Bisphenol_A containing Poland Spring bottles:

HelloAnyong,

Do you consider FDA statements on BPA and certain countries banning the use of BPA in food containers a POV? Why is it POV to state that BPA is considered harmful, otherwise? Could you explain please?

This is from wikipedia's own page on BPA: "A 2010 report from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised further concerns regarding exposure of fetuses, infants and young children.[1] In September 2010, Canada became the first country to declare BPA as a toxic substance.[2][3] In the European Union and Canada BPA use is banned in baby bottles.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.157.138 (talk • contribs) 04:11, January 2, 2011

True, but listing it there seems to be suggesting that Poland Spring is endangering people's lives or something. We don't really go around putting a label on every article about a product that uses BPA. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the suggestion is correct. Using BPA in food containers is endangering people's lives. That is the position of dozen or so countries banning the substance? What good is wikipedia if you are omitting the most relevant information. Is it because Poland Spring might be slighted?

I don't see a problem putting a label on every article about a product or store that uses/carries BPA. Here is

one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Foods_Market —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.157.138 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That article doesn't say "BPA is considered harmful for human consumption", as far as I can see. Let me clarify a bit: the effects of BPA should remain on the BPA article. There's no reason to go around labeling every article with the data, and I think to do so would be pushing a point of view. If there was some larger issue with Poland Spring using BPA - say, if some people got sick - then we could justify it a bit more. But we don't put warning labels on articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what to do with this

User:59.101.8.179 made two edits in October 2008, and then nothing until 12 November 2010 -- and has been editing consistently and frequently since then. Some of their edits are problematic, but many or most are productive and helpful. On the other hand, there's about a dozen warning tags on their talk page, and they have responded to none of them. In fact, in about 2000 edits they haven't made a single edit to any talk page. This has ever indication of being a banned or indef-blocked user who wants to contribute, and is doing their very best to fly under the radar to do so.

Since I don't have a clue who it might be, I don't think I have enough behavioral evidence to file an SPI. (And if I did, CUs wouldn't connect an account with an IP anyway.) Is there some way to bring it to a CheckUser's attention for their consideration, or do I need to laboriously go through the IPs contributions and try to find an apparent connection to some banned or blocked user? The CUs might even recognize the editor behind the IP by the subjects they edit.

What do you suggest I do? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, without any sort of guess as to who it might be, the CUs won't run a check on an IP - and even then they don't usually check an IP unless in extreme circumstances, which this does not seem to be. This editor seems all over the place, and it doesn't really strike me as any one person. What I have seen some people do is report to ANI an editor who does not talk on talk pages, respond to user pages, or anything like that. It may or may not work; a block may cause the editor to engage, but perhaps not. You can open an SPI case and say in it that you don't know who it is, but you want to see if anyone else has an idea. Sometimes that works, but sometimes it doesn't. Alternatively you could message some of the more experienced clerks and see if the edit patterns seem familiar. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Two requests

Hi, HelloAnnyong,

I don't think we've "met" on-wiki, but I was just looking for an administrator on the administrator list who doesn't have a vacation message up, and I recalled your name from some thread I surfed by. I have two requests: 1) Administrator MastCell formally warned a disruptive editor[8] under the discretionary sanctions of Race and intelligence ArbCom case, mentioning that warning in an ArbCom enforcement request thread[9] but he didn't have opportunity to log in the warning on the ArbCom case log of blocks, bans, and restrictions, as other editors have done, before he decided he needed a break from admin tasks for a while. (I think all of you who are admins are underappreciated, and aren't getting enough back-up and assistance in your helpful work for the project.) Could I trouble you please to make the log entry after you verify the diffs? I'm not sure if I have authority to do that myself; I am not an administrator. My other request 2) is could you please check whether a topic-banned user's new username new user page new user talk blank former contributions list contribution list of new name is consistent with the WP:CLEANSTART policy or otherwise authorized by administrator action? I'm a big believer in letting bygones be bygones, but I can't tell if there are project policies implicated by the name change here. Whatever is cool with the project policies is cool with me. Thanks for your help. Have a very happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So first, the username change was done by an bureaucrat through the correct channels, so it's fine. And I've listed the warning on the AE page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Looking at the link to the user name change log and following some of the links there helped me understand the policies of the project better. Users blanking their entire user talk page (which, of course, includes the writings of other users, including administrators in some cases) is disfavored in the usual circumstances, although some exceptions may apply, right? Best wishes for a great new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/Brittany Cintron

Thanks for looking into this, that's my first encounter with a rogue editor. The bigger issue seems to be her insistence upon beating the dead horse on this page, and continually reverting edits and calling them "vandalism" simply because she doesn't agree with them. I'm relatively new to disputes; I've already had a Third Opinion request, which seems to have at least calmed some of the reverting, but if this persists, what do you recommend? I don't much like the idea of getting into an editing war, but I doubt too many others have this article on their watchlist. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that it's a slow moving issue. She only edits once or twice a month, and I doubt we'll see any sort of edit warring here. Quoting laws into the article is clearly unacceptable, but it doesn't happen enough to escalate this. Basically I would say monitor the situation for now, and if it worsens then list the issue at ANI or BLPN. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully I don't need to ask for further advice/help. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jbolsec

Hi. You mentioned "Still, I think a sleeper check is needed". What's a sleeper check? Thx for your action. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sleepers are accounts that have been registered but not used for any edits. They're still connected to a sockmaster, but it's not obvious because they haven't edited. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Results: inconclusive (possibly shared university IP). However, editions were disruptive. Is there a way to block both users anyway? --Filius Rosadis (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See the SPI page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Decline for Investigation

Hi Fellow editor, I noticed you declined this. That is fine, but I am concerned that the User:Khalsaburg had many other alts, and their was a campaign of WP:Wikistalking and WP:Harassment directed at me. There was also an incident of WP:Outing by this user, who was suspected of being Khalsaburg. Also see this investigation here Thanks--Sikh-History 14:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, what. I guess so, but like I said on the report, the data is extremely stale, so we can't run a CU on it. I also don't see how the Heliosphere report is related to this at all. If this is just a list of people with whom you've had disagreements, well, you're misusing sockpuppet investigations. Not everyone who has an argument with you is the same person, and accusing them of being so is a sign of bad faith. On top of that, there's no reason to act on accounts that haven't edited in over a year, like Heliosphere. I just updated the SPI case with why I think that Khalsaburg and Intothefire aren't the same person. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats definitely not my intention. That would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia. Just a year or so ago we had an editor who came here with many alts, and started doing some pretty unsavoury things, like the WP:Outing incident. As you are aware, some countries that do not have democracy, WP:Outing can be used target people. The editing styles seems to match up between Satanoid, Khalsaburg, Heliosphere etc etc, but if you say it's not him/her, then that's cool. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Another sock?

אמין מקור (talk · contribs) may be a sock of אֶפְרָתָה (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's possible; I've relisted the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch; that definitely helped. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And how about Floeticsoulchild, as this and Oh boy my danny boy were the only users to vote Strong keep at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 28#Category:Fictional straight males? (Aside from them, everyone voated to delete it.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mm... possible, I suppose, though based on edit behavior I'd say that's someone else. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wyandanch

In response to your comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wyandanch, I added some comments regarding sock puppetry and unacceptable use of multiple accounts, as I understand it. Thanks for all that you do. JoeSperrazza (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at MegastarLV's talk page.
Message added 01:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User requests unblock  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I sent you an email about this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:8qblog

Hello. A good day to you. I see that you have blocked User:8qblog for a period of 24 hours. Isn't 24 hours too little? I feel 48 hours would have been correct. —Abhishek191288 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. First time offense for edit warring, and did it with an IP? Usually that's only 24h. If they do it again, then we'll look at longer blocks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He has done it again here. Abhishek191288 (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. Block extended and page protected. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any action that could be taken for this? The user apparently has deleted the same.—Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that seems a little offensive. I've revdel'd it out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that wasn't the first time though. This is his first one. Could you delete this revision from my talk pls.—Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, that one is not _quite_ offensive enough for me to revdel, I think. But surely you removed it from the talk page? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the f*** word against an editor isn't offensive? Anyways, some other editor undid that revision on my talk. —Abhishek191288 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:SockBlock

Hello! Nice to see that you've started using this template. In addition, I've now merged Template:SockmasterProven into this template, so you can now use {{SockBlock|masterblock=yes|period=optional|evidence=evidence}} when blocking a sockmaster for sock puppetry. If you in some cases can't add evidence to a sockmaster block, I can fix that issue for you. Also, if you have any doubts about using this template, take a look at the documentation. By the way, keep up your great work! I think you're doing a good job at SPI. Best regards, HeyMid (contribs) 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, that'll definitely be getting used. Thanks for the heads up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just a quick update: I've now converted Template:SockmasterProven to Template:SockBlock; this means that if you feel more comfortable using Template:SockmasterProven for sockmaster blocks, you can use that template instead, though it's still Template:SockBlock that's being substituted. HeyMid (contribs) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, good deal. I'll just use {{SockBlock}} going forward. And should I be using it substituted or not? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Substituted, of course. It's meant to be substituted, like if you were substituting {{uw-block}}. :) HeyMid (contribs) 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Heh, okay. It's not in the documentation, so for someone new using the template, they may not realize that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Fixed. HeyMid (contribs) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Autostereoscopy

Please stop changing Autostereoscopy. Add your own section if you must, but please leave my contribution as it is.

You are incorrect when you state that my contributions are unsourced. Read the Dodgson article cited in the reference I provide in the footnote (currently #20: Dodgson, N.A.; J. R. Moore, S. R. Lang (1999). "Multi-View Autostereoscopic 3D Display"). Dodgson is a well-known researcher in this field, and in fact is a contributor to this very page. Everthing you state is unsourced is actually found in this paper, and everthing in the paper is generally consistent with the overwhelming body of literature in this field. Read the papaer.

With respect to "unencyclopedic", that's merely your opinion, not backed by any authority. There is nothing in the contribution that's in clear violation of any Wiki policy or guideline.

As for the technological content of your edits, I adhere to my position that they are wrong technologically, since they omit any discussion of multiple views. As a consequence, the edits you make are unintelligible and do not explain the basis for autostereoscopy's simulation of movement parallax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.24.167 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knowitallfortoday

Hi! I don't know how I managed to duplicate it, but I appreciate your cleanup. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hello again. Can you tell me how to modify Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knowitallfortoday to add an IP which I suspect of belonging to the puppet master? I can't find instructions on the SPI page, and I probably shouldn't add it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knowitallfortoday/Archive. I am not asking you to actually do it--just point me to how it should be done and then hopefully I won't have to bother you again. Also, do you think, looking at Clan of Xymox, that it needs protection from IP editors? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• I added Template:Sockpuppet to the IP's page, and if I read the explanation correctly, this added them to a category that admins look at--is that correct? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Adding the {{sockpuppet}} template only marks it as potentially having been used by the master; we don't actively monitor those categories. Go to WP:SPI and put Knowitallfortoday in the box where it says. Then fill out the data and submit the form, and the case will be open. Once it's open we'll take a look. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • OK--so it's like doing the first one. Actually, this time it will be more fun, cause there's an IP and now also a new account. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Prairespark

Hi there - I noticed you blocked this user for sockpuppetry. The user used sockpuppetry on Mass killings under Communist regimes, a controversial article within WP:DIGWUREN. The sockpuppet was used to avoid a 1RR restriction ([10] [11]). Would you have any objection if, under WP:DIGWUREN, I imposed a topic ban from Eastern European articles on top of your block? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. I would support a topic ban as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, on reflection I've just banned him/her from the one article as he/she appears to have had no interest in Eastern European topics generally. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockaccount

Since you have already dealed [[12]] with the specific user, he is again socking and creating one of his 'or' style unsourced articles [[13]] that was speedy deleted some weeks ago.Alexikoua (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I've taken care of the user and the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pbl1998 blocked as sock

Hi there. As the original blocking admin, I was wondering if you could review this case as I think the wrong outcome was reached and repeated unblock requests aren't getting anywhere. User:Willrocks10 was reported to SPI by me for the blatent use of a sock pupper user:Wokingrocks. This was very obvious and they were blocked straight away. The case was then widened to include user:Pbl1998 and user:Jargonia. CU has shown they are editing on the same IP, at similar times and on similar articles, so PBL and Jargonia were both blocked and have remained so. When I first encountered these editors, I thought they might be socks, but having watched them edit over multiple articles (several of which have now been deleted) over the last month, it became apparent they were not the same person. e.g. here is a set of diffs showing them edit warring with each other.

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=402178188 pbl says bat

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=402686199 willrocks says B.A.T

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=prev&oldid=402686780 pbl says bat again

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=402686922 WR B.A.T

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=402853671 pbl bat

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=402853815 WR B.A.T

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=402854828 pbl bat

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=402854923 WR B.A.T

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=402855027 pbl bat

diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_House&diff=next&oldid=403384839 WR B.A.T

This is not the only example and they have also argued with each other on AfD pages. Trouble is, to see this you need to wade through about a months worth of edits on multiple articles, half of which have been deleted now. I saw it because I was watching all those articles at the time.

What we have here is two schoolkids who are editing together in the school library, hence the common IP. They are also editing at lunchtimes and similar, hence the times, and because they are friends in real life, they are collaborating on the same articles. By way of demonstrating this, user:Jargonia was also tagged and blocked as a sock of Willrocks10 from a CU result, but if you look at thier contributions, all they ever did was oppose him in AfD. It makes no sense for them to be a sock and vote against, in fact as they would cancel out PBLs vote it makes the entire endeavour pointless. I think Jargonia is actually a third student who saw what they were doing and decided to create an account purely to cause mischief.

PBL has attempted to appeal an unblock several times, and I have tried to support this, but it seems the reviewing admins aren't looking beyond the CU, and PBL is too inexperienced to frame thier requests very well, so its not working. Hence this appeal.

Even though it was me who raised the SPI in the first palce, I really think an injustice has been done here and would appreciate it if you could take another look. Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, it's funny that you bring it up. I got an email from Jargonia about this, asking to be unblocked. Indeed, it seems that you're right. Sort of. Willrocks10 actually posted on the archive page and wrote "Jroginia is in fact my arch enemy at school we dislike each other. The school runs on the smae internet ID so thats how wikipedia is getting confused and think we are all the same accounts." (Also they were unhappy with you and let it be known in that comment.) That Pbl1998 has previously sockpuppeted makes this all the more difficult, and will certainly complicate issues going forward.

I'm rather disinclined to override Sandstein's unblock request for Pbl1998. The editor definitely has not shown that they won't do it again, and actually even said "I can't say I won't do it again because I haven't done anything wrong." That's not the right attitude to take, particularly when you're asking for an unblock. Another thing here is that none of these editors have really made any positive contributions, and I'm not entirely convinced that they won't come back and cause chaos. Aside from battling on the List of tallest buildings article, Jargonia's only other edits have been to post on the AfD for the article. So if they're just going to come back and continue to cause chaos, why is the unblock necessary? Perhaps the block reason needs to be changed, then, but that's a different issue.

Now having said that, it's true that  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, and there can be extenuating circumstances. And I agree that what we have here are three people who know each other outside of Wikipedia and are just messing around. To that end, I am considering unblocking Jargonia. But the Pbl1998 one is harder for me to justify.

As a side note, per this edit it makes it look like you made a comment on there. May want to fix that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that if you accept that PBL isn't a sock of Willrocks10, he hasn't used socks. Wokingrocks was a sock of Willrocks, not PBL, and I beleive Willrocks has owned up to that. I know what you mean about the attitude, but again if you assume for the sake of argument PBL isn't a sock, he genuinely hasn't done anything wrong, it was Willrocks who used the sock not him. Also, while Willrocks10 has indeed caused havoc and done a lot of disruptive editing, PBL while inexperienced has not been that bad. He has no warnings on his talk page, just notes about deletions, and his contributions on the AfD's were pretty good faith, versus Willrocks being so disruptive as to pick up a 24hr ban. PBL's main crime is not understanding notabillity, a common issue for newcomers, but has shown that he is receptive to listening to other editors. The bizare outome here is that Willrocks is the truly disruptive editor, and he is now active again and free to edit (and his recent contributions shown a continuing pattern of ignoring consensus), whereas PBL who is just new and needs to learn is indef blocked, a very harsh outcome for pretty minor newcomer crimes. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Willrocks' edits have been disruptive, but I'm not going to indef block him solely based on that. If he continues that pattern of editing, he may end up blocked through other avenues. Anyway, I've unblocked Jargonia, and I hope that I do not come to regret this decision. As I said, though, I'm not going to unilaterally override a denied unblock request. I see you've discussed this with Sandstein, so you may want to bring up this unblocking with them. I do tend to agree, though, that their edits are fairly low quality. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting willrocks be blocked, his editing style will bring that about by himself if he carries on. I just find the situation odd. Sandstein already pointed me in your direction as he doesn't want to overide the checkuser result, so I'm going in circles! I can't speak for Jargonia, but with regards Pbl1998 I would be happy to keep an eye on them and try to mentor them to making better contributions. Their main crime is just bring new, not malicious and after all this I would hope they are receptive to advice. If you accept they aren't a sock they haven't done anything worthy of a block, never mind an indef. I think Jargonia demonstrates that CU is not reliable in this case, and without that the behaviour (e.g the diffs I supplied above) don't support them being a sock. Without the SPI they would never have been blocked in the first place--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked Pbl1998. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guffydrawers

Hello HelloAnnyong

You investigated my contributions and blocked two other accounts I was using. I accept the ban and will avoid the temptation to use multiple accounts. Please may I explain why I was doing so, and ask for your assistance?

I am a serious editor who wishes only to make positive contributions to WP. The reason for using multiple identities was in an attempt to throw off a stalker. The stalker has been undoing any edit by me, anyone in the same (large) company as me (shared IP) and other innocent editors. Despite multiple invitations to discuss the reversion of my edits the stalker has not done so.

The stalker uses IP addresses of open proxies and anonymisers, hopping from IP to IP. A list of some of the IPs more recently used is below.

221.130.23.87/88/90/116/121

221.194.132.217/218/220/222/223/224

74.112.4.185

202.108.50.69/70/71/73/75/76/77

A non-exhaustive list of the articles that the stalker has vandalised by reverting edits, without any regard to their worth or content is:

Alla Pugacheva , Arte Povera , Changi , Chester , Council of Islamic Revolution (Iran) , Daniela Katzenberger , Feuerzangenbowle , Florea Ispir , Ibotenic acid , Labour Party (UK) deputy leadership election, 2007 , Mulled wine , Patagonia , Paul di Resta , Pif gadget , Quantum compression , RAF Gan , Santa Ponsa , Sport in Singapore , Strasbourg , The Assembly Line , Vindaloo , Zuckerhütl

I foolishly tried to revert the reversions - leading to an edit war that got us nowhere, for which I sincerely apologise.

The stalker has now taken to placing a Sockpuppet tag on my user page and reverting any attempt of mine to clear this page and get on with what I wish to do: edit articles in a positive spirit and accepting the views of other editors.

I do not ask for unblocking of the other accounts I used, just for advice on throwing off this stalker.

Kind regards Guffydrawers (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're being stalked, the answer is not to register multiple accounts. Per WP:PROXY, open proxies can be blocked at any time, so you should report any open proxies that you know of that are being misused. And if you truly believe that you are being stalked, you should bring it up on WP:ANI or one of the other noticeboards. Even if there's some potential rationale, that does not exempt you from policies. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, HelloAnnyong. As mentioned above I accept the ban. I do not seek exemption from any policy. Yes, I truly believe what I say. Thanks for giving me a lead to go on.

Kind regards

Guffydrawers (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Michaël Youn

Thanks for the semi-protection ! GL (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sock template removed

I noticed a user removed a sock template from the user page, from an investigation you recently closed. Would you take a look? --Pnm (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I've undone the removal and warned the master. And I'll be keeping an eye on that page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken a sock puppet is when a single person personifies two people which I did not. I'm assuming your system did the analysis by IP Address. Djtimekeeper is my best friend we both used the same computer at Green River Community College. Before you start accusing people be fair. I will gladly provide both mine and Djtimekeepers name and might even give you other information to verify we are two different people. Now stop being a dictator and think before you randomly accuse people.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Time Will Say Nothing

When closed this you wrote:

"Account was blocked by Hohohobo and the IPs are jumping around"

Shouldn't that be: "Hohohobo account blocked by Rjanag..." [14]

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, self fail. So fixed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Samsonite spi

Hi, I saw that closure, nice one, best wishes. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please...

...have a look into my conduct regarding the situation between AkankshaG and I. The user is claiming stalking & intimidation at the COIN and has removed a message from me on her talk page [15] asking for me in the diff to "Please stop stalking me. You are not welcome on my talk page. Leave me alone." This is serious issue because should nothing be done at the end of the COIN complaint, I don't think that we will be able to work together harmoniously at any Article at all, and it will be difficult to continue. Not sure if this is genuine fear of me, or a smokescreen to avoid the issue raised at COIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phearson (talk • contribs) 18:02, January 9, 2011

COIN isn't my specialty, but I can tell you that the editor is allowed to remove notes from their talk page. Honestly I don't really like the idea of ruling on the COIN case, particularly since I'm tangentially involved through SPI and whatnot. I think it may be best for you two to avoid each other until the case is settled. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a ruling, but I will take your advice on avoiding until settled. Phearson (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ptss1gard

We really should stop meeting like this! Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha. You do know I'm an SPI clerk, right? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that out after the last one. Until then, I really only knew that you had a funky name, and I've wondered if you picked it because it's so close to "Hello Annoying" or if that was a bonus you discovered afterward. But I haven't been involved in many SPIs until recently, when they seem to come my way with some regularity. Oh, I meant to say this last time: I appreciate your quick action and your help with guiding me through some of the ins and outs. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. And my username is a reference to a TV show. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We cutoff with the wrong start hope we can resolve it

We cutoff with the wrong start hope we can resolve it , sorry for any discomfort, I am living for a while, and hopefully coming soon.

Progressive one (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The SPI case

Hi HelloAnnyong. Could you please take a look at this case on Aram-van? I added a few more accounts for CU because of the recent possibly coordinated mass activity of several suspicious accounts. I had filed an AN report because of an active edit-warring by these accounts here. An administrator said this had more to do with SPI than with AN board. That's why I added these accounts. It is my belief they could be connected considering abnormal activity also found in this recent case with strange results. So, can you please let me know if the information from my AN report on edit warring needs to be copied to the current SPI case or it is sufficient to just have it as a link to AN report? Thank you in advance! Tuscumbia (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge needed

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ludovica91 >> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2. Dynamo Stavropol (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indextookviewsgoals

Thanks for your help there. --John (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hey Annyong,

Firstly, kudos on all the effort you put into SPIs. Someone has to police WP for all these kinds of shinenigans!

Secondly, when you say that CU doesn't link accounts to IPs, I presume that is to avoid WP:OUTING, yes? If so, then I guess it's not really possible to block an IP for socking, as you won't be able to definitively demonstrate that an IP matches a registered user. Is that conclusion correct?

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The privacy policy doesn't allow us to say "User XYZ has edited from IP 1.2.3.4." Yes, it's an outing thing of sorts. That doesn't mean we can't block an IP based on behavioral evidence, though. And when we block a user account, the autoblock will also block the editor's IP, so sometimes that takes care of the problem as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. So blocking a user for socking automatically blocks the IP that user was linked to by CU. I guess the autoblock doesn't show up when you check the IP's contributions.... regardless, thanks for the info. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Any time a user is blocked for anything with the autoblock IP enabled, it blocks their IP as well. Whether or not that's the IP that's listed in the CU case is a different story. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I think we're mis-communicating here. Say SockX edits from IP Y. If SockX is checked and autoblocked, IP Y is blocked as well, right?

My question is, if you check the block log for IP Y will you see the autoblock? NickCT (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes to the first question, no to the second. At least, not if you're not an admin. I think showing the block would also be outing of a sort. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

re "showing the block would also be outing of a sort" - Exactly. This was sorta the point I was driving at. Thanks. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Slap on the wrist to GoldDragon

Hello, noticed GoldDragon earned themself a block extension by evading a block. Just wondering why they get the tiniest slap on the wrist, yet many editors are banned indefinitely on the first sign of this behaviour. This user adds terribly sourced material to pages, and ignores attempts to get them to improve or discuss it. As much as they may have good-intentions, this user has shown an unwillingness to change. I'm hoping you'll reconsider based on the ever-increasing pile of evidence. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It's really up to the blocking admin. Perhaps I'm being too lenient, but blocks are cheap. If it happens again, it'll be an indef block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly–Gadabay culture

I don't know if you might find something of interest here or not. I'm wondering if I can hear something meowing... Peridon (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, do you mean quacking? It just seems like one editor posting repeatedly. I don't see any new accounts coming through and pushing the vote one way or another, or anything like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said meowying. The user was involved in an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive in his first edits and is here editing in an area of the world also edited by the socks or suspects. Lady Of Shalott is keeping an eye on things too, at my request. I've not got enough SPI experience to be sure, which is why I'm turning to those with deeper knowledge. Peridon (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not so impressed

I must say I was rather underwhelmed by your response to my SPI case, as I have stated here. The account admitted to innocently using multiple accounts and it seems to me you've accepted that version at face value, when in fact the diffs provide a clear portrait of someone lying in edit summaries and editing deceptively and disruptively, including getting away with hiding the AfD for days. And you're "impressed"? I thank you for your attention in the SPI but you're complimenting him, when it seems clear he now just wants to whitewash what he's not-so-innocently done with these accounts, really bugs me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Impressed" was the wrong word, and I've struck that out. I really meant that it was good to see that the user actually admitted to socking. I look at at least a dozen of these cases a day, and very rarely does the master own up to their actions. The article's now up for CSD now, so his socking was for naught anyway. He can whitewash if he wants, but the case is still there and the socks are still tagged. I'm sorry if I came off as overly apologetic; that really was not my intention. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You know what, I think that it may have been the right word; I am impressed too. It's like raising kids--when they own up to a lie, one is impressed, even though it doesn't mitigate the lie. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

stale...

Sorry for wasting your time. I learned something new. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

confused

The COI and sockpuppetry are (were) to be part of the basis for AfDing the article following the closure of the case. I thought it looked "bulletproof" as cases go. Since he is lying to defend the puppet on two current threads, is this not active attempts at deception & sockpuppetry?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use sockpuppetry as a basis for AfD, as it's not directly tied to the actual notability of the article. What you could use this case for is that Griffey35jsb is an SPA, so any votes they give could be disregarded. Either way, it's difficult (for me, anyway) to justify a block on an account that hasn't edited in over three weeks. Suppose a checkuser was run and it was determined that the accounts were possible matches. I don't feel strongly enough about the connection between the accounts now, and a CU wouldn't help that at all.

If you want to AfD the article, find other justification - advertising, for example. I have a feeling that the subject is actually notable, though I'm not positive he passes WP:AUTHOR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. Once closed, would you be looking for any edits from Griffey to justify re-opening or certain types of edits. I can keep a watch on them but don't want to open a case that won't pass. That would only add to the caseload at SPI and effectually waste time. I understand your concerns that you make above now.

I've noticed that AfDs bring the socks out of the woodwork, too. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hi HelloAnnyyong. Could you please take a look at this one? Tuscumbia (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest sock of LouisPhilippeCharles

Please take a look at this. I didn't know how to "un-archive" it, so I'm not sure it's been restored to the queue of active cases, but it needs to be addressed. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Going forward, just go to WP:SPI, put LouisPhilippeCharles in the box, and it'll create a new addition to the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)