User talk:Vanjagenije

Main Articles Files Userboxes Awards Tools News Deletion log Talk page Hello, welcome to my talk page! If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. Thank you! Vanjagenije (talk)

Please comment on Talk:International Justice Mission

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Justice Mission. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Lrednuas Senoroc

• 91.61.203.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Same ISP, same geolocation, same articles/targets, same manner, same agenda. The ip belongs to the same notorious sockmaster and impersonator.

Info regarding Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell/Heysem/Kintetsuboffalo's ip socks based on previous cases:

• Geolocation: Mainly North Rhine Westphalia, Germany
• ISP: Unitymedia(probably home isp), Deutsche Telecom

So, the anon is technically and behaviorally the same sockpuppeteer. You said that you are going to block the sockmaster, if he back with the same agenda. He does not target the same minority group SALIENTLY, in order not to be noticed. However, all info(at least 2 of them are spams) he mentioned on talk page is obviously fit with LS's agenda against the same group-trying to demonstrate how widespread the practice is(among the same ethnicity)- There are many diffs from his previous ip socks regarding it. Since it is not about the content but the WP:AGENDA, WP:SCRUTINY, WP:TE, WP:SOCKING etc., i will wrap it out. What i am trying to say is that the same agenda/disruption continues through ip socks of the same impersonator sockmaster. (I cannot understand how this long-term abuser is still unblocked, even though he violated the wikipedia policies as if its breakfast.) 176.126.68.73 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I cannot use my own ip now, since WP is blocked in my country. I hope you remember the previous discussions. 176.126.68.73 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed the sockmaster's another edit via his another ip sock and it made me think that Heysem was also his sock account, as PanchoS said before. Please compare their edits. (The ip's both geolocation and ISP are the same with Lrednuas Senoroc's. )

• Heysem (talk · contribs)
• 178.201.64.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Also, Hassan Rebell did not reject of being Heysem in his talk page while he strictly rejected the accusations regarding the ip 86.165.11.32. It seems that user PanchoS was also right, Heysem was also sock of the same disruptive user evading block(Heysem started to edit WP when Rebell was blocked). 176.126.68.80 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My talk page is not a good place to conduct sockpuppet investigations. Try opening a WP:SPI case, so that other clerks may take a look too. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The sock account is stale and conducting a SPI case is not a good advice despite i have other proofs regarding the block evading sock Heysem. But one should tag Heysem as "suspected sock of Lrednuas Senoroc". Also, what about the ip socks? As i showed above, the ip belongs to the same notorious sockmaster and continues the same agenda on talk pages. Unfortunately, i do realised that you are not the right admin to share info regarding this notorious long-term sock puppeter, impersonator, meatpuppeter, tendentious and disruptive vandal. Maybe it is because you are so busy, you do not pay attention to this problem enough and dismiss the evidences. I'll take my concerns to appropriate pages. Bye! 176.126.68.73 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed a dubious account likely Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell/Kintetsubuffalo. He made his last edit on 23 March. Is it stale? As far as i remember, it requires 3 months to be regarded as "stale". 103.200.5.90 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

I have just discovered that on 22 April you undid a block I had placed. It is normally considered desirable to consult an administrator before reversing an administrative action he or she has performed, and in the few occasions when that is not necessary it is a reasonable courtesy at least to inform him or her. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry question

What's the appropriate response to potential sockpuppetry when you don't know who the master account is? Specifically, I'm concerned about Burning Pillar. They're far more familiar with the inner workings of the 'pedia than an editor whose only been around about a month ought to be. For example, their fourth edit was a non-admin closure of an AfD. They've also been explicitly asked about previous accounts and have ignored the question. Point is that this all looks very suspicious to me, but I don't really know what to do about it. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Sir Sputnik: Sockpuppetry is, by definition, abusive usage of multiple accounts. Is there anything abusive in this case? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Per point three of WP:ILLEGIT, editing the project space from an undisclosed alternate account is abusive. That's certainly what this looks like to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry in this case. It is possible that the account is a sock of a blocked user, and it is also possible that the user previously edited as an anonymous IP, which is allowed. So, the answer to your original question is: nothing. Without evidence of sockpuppetry, the appropriate response is to do nothing. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

COI need comment: Coolpad Group

老山 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keep on ownership of the article, adding ad like content and he declared he is from Coolpad (not exactly the word staff), so could you comment on the thread in WP:COIN board or do something? Matthew_hk tc 14:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Look more complicated as two socks were created:

Bookperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Emma0924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Matthew_hk tc 17:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: We have WP:SPI for reporting sockpuppets. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You closure of the SPI on CommotioCerebri...

In this edit you wrote: "Making one logged-out edit is not abusive sockpuppetry. Case closed."

COmmotioCerebri has just four edits in their edit history. No one becomes familiar with the wikipedia's baroque set of policies and guidelines in the course of making just four edits.

1. Their very first edit, the removal of a deadlink, is highly untypical for a brand new contributor. What brand new contributor even knows what a deadlink is?
2. In their second edit they weigh in on a talk page discussion, as to whether a passage merits a failed verification tag. How many newbies know the internal wikipedia jargon they use? How many even know how to sign a talk page message?
3. In their third edit they show they are already familiar with the {{convert}} template, and has experience arguing over when it should and shouldn't be used. No newbie knows this.
4. In their fourth edit they show enough of a familiarity with our notability guidelines that they quote a passage, just like an experienced contributor.

So, in spite of having just four edits under their belt, they are acting like an experienced contributor.

Might they have exercised the right to disappear, only to decide to return, under a new ID? Policy allows this. It does not allow those who decided to disappear to reappear using a stable of new IDs. Is a person who decided to exercise the right to disappear, then made the big decision to return under a new ID, only going to employ that new ID once a month? I don't find that credible, and I think you closed the investigation prematurely.

Don't clerks have tools that can confirm or refute that a contributor is making edits using multiple wiki-IDs from the same set of IP addresses? Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Geo Swan: Clerks do not, but a handful of trusted users have access to the WP:Checkuser tool that can be used to see IP addresses of users. But, because of the privacy concerns, it may only be used when there is evidence of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is abusive usage of multiple accounts (see: WP:ILLEGIT). In this case, you show that the user is experienced and probably not new, but you didn't provide any evidence of abuse. Not every usage of multiple accounts is forbidden, just abusive. I'm not sure what you mean by "stable of new IDs". Where is that stable? Vanjagenije (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DisuseKid

Hello Vanjagenije, I have a few requests if you don't mind. This edit overrided the previous case that had not been archived yet. Is there any way to fix that? If not, then no big deal, it just kind of bothers my OCD. Also, would it be possible to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parsley Man into the main SPI as well? Finally, could you please revoke talkpage access to prevent further shenanigans from the following socks: A Concerned American, Anime Fan 003, A1b2C3d4, and Warner Sun. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Sro23:
  1. You are right. I failed to notice that there was still one unarchived case that I overwritten. I fixed that.
  2. That is, of course, possible. But, I need someone to archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid first. As I was the one who closed the case, I shouldn't be archiving. I would also like Bbb23 to comment on merging.
  3.  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  Vanja, I archived DisuseKid. I knew a long time ago that Parsley Man was  Confirmed to DisuseKid (I assume that's the comment you wanted).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Skyhook1 SPI

Hi Vanjagenije. JFG is unfamiliar with SPI practices so can you please do whatever you need to do to make this edit kosher from a clerking perspective? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I've done maybe one or two SPI reports ever, and this one is nonstandard as it's going directly to the archive after NeilN already took action. — JFG ^talk 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: You shouldn't be editing archives because, well, they are ... archives. What action did NeilN take? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted JFG's edit. @JFG: You are free to open new case as described at WP:SPI ("How to open an investigation"). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I'll handle it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. — JFG ^talk 03:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JAVIERPASTORBELDA/ANTONIO IBÁÑEZ DE ALBA

Dear friend

Is it ok now for publishing this article about Antonio Ibáñez de Alba?

What changes do I have to make in order to have the problems solved?

Thanks

JAVIERPASTORBELDA (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@JAVIERPASTORBELDA: I guess you are talking about User:JAVIERPASTORBELDA/ANTONIO IBÁÑEZ DE ALBA. It has several issues. First, every statement should be supported by citations of reliable sources (see WP:V). You cited several sources, but you just placed them all at the end of the article. Instead, you should put a citation at the end of each statement, so that the reader can verify the statement. Also, you should add more WP:wikilinks to connect your article with other articles. Also, all your citations are in the form of bare URLs that are prone to WP:link rot. See WP:PLRT to learn how to solve link rot.

Another, bigger problem, is that the article was already deleted (twice) after a deletion discussion was held here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Ibáñez de Alba. Participants in the discussion opined that the person is not WP:NOTABLE per Wikipedia's standards. It is allowed to recreate an article that was deleted after discussion, but only if you solve the issues that led to the deletion. In this case, the main issue was that editors felt that citations in the article do not represent "reliable independent sources with significant coverage" as mandated by WP:GNG. In the new version of the article (User:JAVIERPASTORBELDA/ANTONIO IBÁÑEZ DE ALBA) you did not solve this in any way. This new version contains the same citations that were present in the previous (deleted) version. This means that the person is simply not notable per Wikipedia standards and that you shouldn't be writing about them. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear friend

Why is he not notable for English Wikipedia when he is notable for French, Spanish, and German Wikipedia?

Antonio Ibáñez de Alba appears in lots of newspapers, books and scientific reviews.

I don´t understand why a notable researcher according to New Scientist, plenty of google books, Financial Times, El Mundo, El País, etc, is not notable only for the English Wikipedia

Thanks

JAVIERPASTORBELDA (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• @JAVIERPASTORBELDA: French and Spanish Wikipedias are totally independent of English Wikipedia, and each has its own rules and standards. English Wikipedia, being the largest one, has somewhat higher standards of notability that other, smaller projects. I don't know about this particular case, but if you think the AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Ibáñez de Alba) was wrongly closed as "delete", you can ask for WP:Deletion review. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox religious text

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox religious text. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjec

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjec. 88.208.16.48 (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

• Update: Steward User:Tegel has global blocked the IP range which the vandal used. 88.208.16.48 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

75.136.218.176

75.136.218.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi,

I came across this IP's edits recently, and I saw that you blocked them for a year per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/331905A4. It hasn't been terribly long since they began editing again after your block, so would you mind taking a look to see if the edits look similar to before? Thanks. 172.58.40.122 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello! Please check on this anonymous editor who keeps on initiating edit wars for weeks now and keeps making groundless accusations on various editors of sockpuppetry. There are no sufficient evidence to confirm they're the same users and yet this anonymous editor keeps on insisting they are and reverts their edits aggressively. It's very disruptive. I hope you can put an end to it. Thanks! 191.205.214.6 (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.198.73.9

This is the third IP posting the same message on a third admin's page. I've blocked all of them. Pinging Bbb23 so he's aware. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

IP Sock 121.219.136.184 is doing it again. He's posting the same message again to User talk:Ks0stm wanting to block someone. -112.198.73.9 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"Cyber Anakin" obsessive.

You may remember Bugmenot123123123 (talk · contribs) (and perhaps his obvious sockpuppet Mdikici4001 (talk · contribs)), who was obsessed with commemorating the exploit of a hacker calling himself "Cyber Anakin"? Well, it looks like he hasn't given up, and is now calling himself Mamasanju (talk · contribs).

I think a block for block evasion is in order, and given the long-ago creation dates for the accounts

• Bugmenot123123123 - November 2007
• Mdikici4001 - November 2016
• Mamasanju - May 2015

that a Sockpuppet Investigation could find sleepers. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) Calton (talk · contribs) Isn't there a consensus in Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Hacking_incident_that_arose_from_this_plane_shootdown_incident? Can you read till the last part where User:Ahunt reached a consensus that the mention be place in "International Reactions" page? Mamasanju (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Excerpt: "I would definitely support it going in International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown as a short note. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)". Mamasanju (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to get consensus for adding something to Page A, you don't get it by going to the talk page of Page B. Not at all difficult.

Normally I would that suggest you go to Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown, but since you're likely to be blocked for block evasion -- and that edits of block evaders can simply be rolled back -- that would be a waste of time. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Calton: Fell free to open a WP:Sockpuppet investigation and provide evidence. My talk page is not a right place for conducting sockpuppet investigations. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• I am not here to conduct a sockpuppet investigation. I'm posting here because

a) you've dealt with this guy before;

b) the sockpuppetry is so obvious that an SPI would be unnecessary;

c) of reason a, no long explanation of the background would be necessary;

d) the ONLY reason I mention an SPI is the possibility of rooting out sleeper accounts.

Do you disagree with any of the above? --Calton | Talk 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, especially with the claim that I am somehow familiar with this case. My only interaction with this user (as long as I remember) was answering their talk page question once (User_talk:Bugmenot123123123#Proposing good faith or constructive edits on my talk page when the 6 month offer is ongoing). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.H.110/Archive

Hi, I just wanted to let you know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cdg428 from May 2017, I think some of this information needs to be copied to the D.H.110 archive. I had mistakenly tried to do it myself but Berean Hunter informed me that a clerk needs to do it and there is some procedure involved. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Morty C-137: I see no need to copy anything. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my request

Hello! and thank you for accepting my request. As I had mentioned before, my change wasn't meant to be promotional - the way I see it is that the person who got the startup added on Wikipedia did not have a right to do so. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of startups each year that get some notoriety yet NONE of them have a Wikipedia page. Furthermore, there is an Unthink company that has been in business for many years and has made it on the news, influenced others, etc. etc. and again doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. My effort was to simply make sure it was separated from the one that exists because there are a lot of famous 'Unthink' word users and authors. With that said, I do want to thank you for accepting my request, my question to you is- how do I complete the name change request? I'm not sure if I did already the right way.