User talk:HelloAnnyong

Something to say? Add a new thread.

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

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

Supernatural implications

Is there some, um, conclusion to be drawn from the fact that that your edit count at WP:3O has been stuck at 666 since May 25? Do we need to call in an exorcist? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned user Jackjit again editing using his revolving 118 IP

Jackjit's back! The banned user Jackjit is again vandalizing Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld article again (and others) using his revolving 118 IP. He is again making the same edits he tried to make over a month ago when he was blocked. Please, can we put a stop to this quicker than last time? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In the most recent additions to the case, both incidents were handled in under 24h. Is that not fast enough for you? Going forward, list the IP at the case and we'll handle it. In the meantime, I've blocked that IP for a few days. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to his editing for months at Red Eye article, using sockpuppets, IPs, etc, until Gadfium (talk) spotted him using his revolving/dynamic 118 IP and editors were alerted to his past as Jackjit. But it still took weeks before he was successfully blocked, and frankly I strongly suspect he is using another fixed IP editing there still to this day. Thanks for the help. I do appreciate how hard it is to stop this stuff. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Tasc0

Yeah, I know it sounds far fetched but my gut feeling (Baseball Bugs and I, we seemed to have that ability to sniff out socks for some strange reason) is telling me that he is indeed using that IP to return here, taking very great care to avoid his old topic. I acknowledge that there has been a boatload of similar IP behaviours but this guy is really cunning, there's subtlety in his edit which I can't pinpoint but the similar way of nick-picking at words and with concise edit summaries both produces. Without provocations, he won't react and I merely just pointed out to him about something in his word of choice and he blew his top, something not missed by me when I went through his edit and noted in his BAN endorsement. The lapse between now and 2008 might not produce anything concrete but the similar pattern of outburst is something worth watching out for. Also, it took Σ to provide that critical link which I lacked until yesterday that I was finally able to connected the dots. That said, what is your advice/thought on this and if so, what other course of action should I undertake? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There was one case three years ago where another account was found to be unrelated. Since then there hasn't been any codified reports that I can find. I'm sure if I searched through the logs, I could find you a dozen similar threats made by various people. I'm sorry, but the current evidence does not support the conclusion that this IP is the same guy from three years ago - so blocking with that justification seems wrong. Now having said that, the IP is being abusive, so we could block for that. But they were warned by 28bytes a few days ago and haven't really said anything worth blocking for, so I'm a little hesitant. Let me know if they return to their abusive ways, though, and we'll figure something out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and noted. Should I give the IP a wide berth? To be clear, is templating the IP talk page with an ISP template wrong? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not wrong, but that's usually done when we have a long history of that IP being abusive. That isn't the case here. I'd say leave it off for now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Okie dokie. Thanks again. Cheers! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP is edit warring on the article again this morning --Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cyperuspapyrus

Since you were the blocking admin for Cyperuspapyrus, can you have a look at this edit, the bit about "I personally don't understand why there's always a proposal for deletion in pages concerning kickboxing organizations" seems fishy given his past contributions. Mtking ^(edits) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, would like to ask for advice. If a user with limited history of contributions participates in discussion like a pro, is there any way to check for sock-puppetry? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean.. yeah, we can check to see if they're a sockpuppet, but usually we like there to be some sort of evidence and guess as to who the master is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, could you please have a look at this user. The account was launched on July 14 and the first comment they made in the talkpage was this one. This is one other of their edits. I don't think that a newcomer could start with this level of knowledge of WP.

The articles they edited have commonness with NovaSkola (see this, but I really cannot think of motive, so it would probably be very tendencious to suspect the later. What is the right action now? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 03:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a hard one. It could also be an IP that edited before and has just registered an account. No one account there really sticks out to me. If you're 100% sure that it's a sock then you can list it at SPI, but I'm not sure on this one.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. WP:SPI seems to require mentioning the "SOCKMASTER". Is there a way to list it at SPI without mentioning a master candidate? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No - hence why I said if you want to list the account, you should probably figure out who the master is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

a word of appreciation

	for endless outstanding work as an SPI clerk
	ever since I can remember reporting or reading about sockpuppets, you've been calmly and efficiently dealing with them. I therefore take great pleasure in awarding you the sockpuppet-confuzzling barnstar. Keep up the great work! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if you do barnstar-type things, and I realise your userpage doesn't accommodate them, but I thought it should be said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I do actually have a page for them and I link to it from my user page, but it's not wholly obvious. Still, I do appreciate the vote of confidence. Thanks again! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zuggernaut

I apologise for wasting your time regarding the above investigation. There is something odd going on but clearly it is not socking. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Van Tuong Nguyen

You protected this page claiming "persistent sockpuppetry". There is no such thing. You should not give dishonest justifications when in fact you seem to be protecting it to give the upper hand to one side in a content dispute. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what evidence you apparently believe there is of any sockpuppetry related to edits to this article, much less "persistent sockpuppetry". Please explain your protection on the talk page. Talk:Van Tuong Nguyen. Thanks, --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Failing to explain your actions is extremely poor form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.27.93 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Added new SPI but old one not archived

In this SPI, I have filed a new case, but the preceding one hasn't been archived. Just wondering if something was wrong.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you didn't do anything wrong - a clerk just hasn't gotten around to archiving the case. On more active cases this sort of thing happens regularly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and if you don't mind, would you please block the sockmaster?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just getting to that. See the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder what Wikipedia would do without you.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amynan.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

℥^nding·start 04:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WCGSOldBoy

FYI: I've also left a note about the most recent socks at User talk:Tnxman307, who is already familiar with the user and was the one to investigate the original report (now in the archive). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Advertising?

I fail to see how anything I added is a "soapbox" or advertising in anyway. The Maryland Renaissance Festival is a business. As a business, they set prices for their product. To say what the rate of a product is is only statistical information, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.103.46 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding ticket prices is advertising! Wikipedia isn't a flyer or anything. If you want to advertise ticket prices, put them on the MDRF website or somewhere else. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. Encyclopedias don't list ticket prices. Read WP:NOTADVERTISING. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spartanmastah

The reason I added the IP was that Whois reported it a static IP. If there's a relation between this IP and the blocked users, blocking the IP may prevent further vandalism. I assume the vandal will be back within the next 24 hours as Spartanmastah3 or TheGreatness4. --Denniss (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, and if it does we'll take care of it then. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As predicted, we have a User:TheGreatness4 now. The only contribution so far was the removal of the IP-user location determined via Whois. --Denniss (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Now he's back as User:TheGreatness5 --Denniss (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jww047

Hi HelloAnnyong,

Will I be stepping on your toes if I block Jww047 for 29 days, to match the 1 month block on his two IP's? I'm familiar with the Jww047 situation, and have brought myself up to speed on the latest ANI and SPI. He's disruptive and is, it seems, immune to requests, advice, and warnings. He edit wars interchangeably with his account and his IP's, often to add BLP violations to an article. His IP's are both blocked for a month for behavior that he is now continuing with his account.

I note that you declined to block the account in the SPI, so I'll hold off until I hear from you in case I'm missing something that you see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on recent contribs in the last hour, I've gone ahead and made the block, and commented on the SPI. Let me know if you have any concerns/etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Thanks for taking care of that case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa

I've added an additional sock here. Since the investigation was closed, I'm not sure if I was supposed to do that or open another case. Please advise. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What you did was fine. That account hasn't edited in awhile, though, so we can store it away for now, and relist if it becomes active again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed sock needs block and tag

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wliiam·Shakespeare. The sock in question is NapoleoneBonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I was just getting to that case. I do look at the cases on a daily basis, you know.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Correction

I misspelled Fatima when I meant user Fantimiya. I have left an apology for Fatima, reverted myself there, and corrected the name on the Sockpuppetry page. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You have misspelled it again. It is Fatimiya. This accusation of sock-puttery has no basis. However, as I have made a report, I believe Edward321 and Jeff3000 are indeed sock-puppets --Fatimiya (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have listed three more suspected sockpuppets. SecretChiefs3 is stale, but listed because I believe this is SecretChiefs3 editing around an indefinite block for themselves and their dozen previous sock accounts. Edward321 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edward321 & Jeff3000

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Edward321 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeff3000. The notes for the 1st apply to the second --Fatimiya (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jackit/ revolving 118 IP now shopping around for others to do his edits

He's shopping around for help to make his edits (and is succeeding), just as his LONG history shows he has done many times in his past when he can't get his way on an article. Please look at his unfair mischief here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Red_Eye_w.2F_Greg_Gutfeld

This is totally discouraging to me as I have done my very best to follow all wiki policy to improve this place called Wiki. If this shopping around for others by so-called banned/blocked user is allowed to stand, then the Wiki community can count me out as an editor and it really saddens me to say that because for the most part, I have really enjoyed being here and learning/helping to create a better Wiki for all. But I won't be lied about by the likes of a Jackjit and others he recruits (with notorious edit histories) to do his bidding. Can't something real be done to block this guy or is Wiki a hopeless case when it comes to fairness? --RedEyedCajun (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You can try to build consensus for a community ban, but from a technological standpoint, there's little that can be done. If it's just the same IP, then we can block it for longer, but if there are other IPs being used then all we can do is block and move on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

These are in fact only questions not complaints, so don't worry. This Sockpuppet investigations (once I was incorrectly included in a list for someone elses sockpuppet IDs) was my first at reporting, so I have some simple questions for you, just to understand the process and it's meaning, since it was closed so much faster then I imagined.

• 1. Was this the incorrect place for this issue. I notice you say that "This isn't a fast enough edit war to really do much about it". You are correct that this is not a fast edit war, but this is an edit war going on since December 2010, and a lot of the other editors are really tired of Nottoohappy blatantly vandalizing the page. I had hoped that a block of Nottoohappy could more forward once he edit the page. This was my modivation for opening the investigation, so that we can show he did it again. This leads me to my next question.
• 2. Whould it be better to move this to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (which was done before), or would that be inapproprate?
• 3. Dose this show that they are Sockpuppets, meaning I can refer to the investigation as evidence that Nottoohappy has again vandalized the page?
• 4. Dose blocking the IP address block Nottoohappy also (Assuming that they are in fact sockpuppets)?

Thanks for helping out a Newbe when I comes to this kind of stuff--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 02:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1. This was the correct place for the issue. We've got an editor who's been hopping IPs a whole lot, so it's good to have a record of that. The reason I didn't block Nottoohappy is because they haven't edited in roughly three weeks and they clearly prefer using IPs - so what good would a block do? If it becomes active again, then we can consider it.
2. I don't think this is fast enough to take to ANI. The last thing they need over there is another thread...
3. It seems likely that the account and the IPs are the same, but it isn't (and won't be) confirmed.
4. No, blocking the IP doesn't block the account as well. The converse would be true, however.

Basically going forward, relist the IPs as they show up and we'll block them if we deem it necessary. If it picks up a bit then we can also look at long-term protection of the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and the good info. I now understand it a bit more. However, what dose "relist the IPs" mean?

So now my plan of action is to open an ANI if Nottoohappy posts as Nottoohappy since that process is father along. If he posts as an IP address again, I will "relist the IPs", once I understand what that means. If that isn't the way it should be done, please let me know. I would hate to be accused of something inapprprate.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 02:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

One more question I just thought of. I highly suppect Nottoohappy to be a WP:SPA, concidering that he almost exclusivly edits the artical in question. However, after reading SPA, I'm not sure what, if anything I should have said or should do about it. Since "Checkuser" isn't a "First line" (understandably so), what can a "non-admin" do to see if the IP address has other Sockpuppetsm besides Nottoohappy.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 02:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

By relisting, I mean submit a new version of the case (same process as you did the first time) with the new IPs and evidence. It's your choice to drag this in front of ANI, but I think we can handle it at SPI. It's your call, though. As to being an SPA, that's not a blockable offense. You can mention it (and maybe use it as evidence in the future) but unless they're being particularly abusive, it's not a first-rate offense.

Even checkuser can't draw connections between IPs. An IP is the lowest level we have available to us. If a person is using multiple IPs, we determine a connection based on behavior, not technical evidence. So there isn't really much a regular user or an admin (or checkuser) can do there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a bit confused those. Isn't creating a SPA a form of Sockpuppty. After all it is mention at WP:BRIEFLY on the Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry page.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 04:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily; you could have a brand new editor who only edits on a single article or single focus, and they would be considered an SPA. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thankk for helping a Sockpuppet Newbe --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 06:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

CU

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uwo222#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments for my detailed response. Please let me know if you need more.Kurdo777 (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Relisting a SPI case

Sorry to bother you about this. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrendanFrye, you commented that I should relist when new things happen. How do I do that or where can I check the procedure to do that? Because another IP with a similar range made some similar reverts as its first contributions. At least this one did something other than reverting, but it does appear to be the same user. Jfgslo (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of this for you; see the SPI case page for more. But to relist, you'd go to WP:SPI, put BrendanFrye in the box in the page as you did before, and then follow the directions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will follow your instructions if it happens again. Jfgslo (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hetoum

Hi, could you have a look at Hetoum's recent case? Thanks in advance.--Ehud (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Long-term sockpuppetry violates Internet Service Providers' "Terms of Service"

I have been around here long enough now to see the countless hours put into chasing sockpuppets and their dynamic IP addresses. As you all know, Internet Service Providers have strict "Terms of Use/Service" agreements with their customers. In these TOS agreements, it clearly states that if the customer uses the ISP services to damage or destroy websites, or for other harassing type of behavior on the Internet, then that service will be terminated. So, after years of chasing some of these "banned users" here on Wikipedia, I think a good case could be presented to an Internet Service Provider that one of their customers is doing great damage harassing the Wikipedia project and wasting the resources of Wikipedia. All you would have to show is a history of damage/harassment done by the sockpuppet/dynamic IP and the exact times the IP made those edits identified as vandalism, then the ISP could trace it back to a particular customer and terminate their service. Obviously this would only be used in extreme cases which have gone on for many months or years. I'm certain someone at Wiki must have thought of this before, so what is the problem with implementing this as policy on Wiki? --RedEyedCajun (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response is what you're looking for, but experience seems to suggest that the vast majority of ISPs are almost completely uninterested in dealing with such reports. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"almost completely uninterested" - Well that's depressing. Maybe it would only take one really good legal case against one of the major ISPs to make them become completely interested; otherwise, these ISPs are just willing accomplices looking the other way while havoc rules. Thanks for the wiki link. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)