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 14 15

iamtrhino again

please take a look at this account [1]. smells like iamtrhino. compare these two diffs: [2], [3]. or these two: [4], [5]-- mustihussain  20:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You know you can add to the sockpuppet case on your own, right? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus

Hi, I see you have blocked both User:Blue-bottle and User:Portuguese Man o' War with a block reason of Abusing multiple accounts. I can find no evidence of abuse, so would you be kind enough, please, to explain the abuse that caused you to block these accounts? I can see that the policy states:

• The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account.

Was there an overlap where two accounts were used to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or any of the other things mentioned? I'm having difficulty in seeing what made you block two apparently abandoned accounts whose contributions were wholly constructive. Thanks in advance, --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet case was opened with regards to this user, and it was confirmed that Alarbus == Blue-bottle == Portuguese == One Ton Depot. So.. that's the reason. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you mean that's it? Where's the abuse of multiple accounts? By that logic you'd be blocking Geni's sock-farm - after all they are all the same person. Or is there one rule for ArbCom candidates and another rule for ordinary editors? --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Geni openly declared his socks; Alarbus didn't. And there's a decent amount of overlap in what articles they edited. Further, they did edit around the same time. One Ton Depot edited through Nov 11, and Alarbus started on Nov 1. Alarbus was editing at the same time as Blue-bottle was, as well. Look, these accounts were confirmed by checkuser. And we have rules that say that editors should stick to one account, and should openly state when they have other accounts. Why are you getting so up in arms about this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those were me. I abandoned those after running into abusive editors. It amounts to fleeing from them, and I left those topic areas. Are there any without owners? The overlaps are mostly templates, and I think that's mostly because the new way of doing things shifted from {{flatlist}} to class="hlist" and I've fixed a huge number of templates and fixed them up further as best practice advanced (this is about WP:HLIST and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class). Blue-bottle was about maybe fleeing the Hemingway crowd that have found at least a dozen ways to call me a prick (and dangerously stupid). OTD made a few further edits because the article was on its way to becoming featured and needed a few fixes, and the talk overlaps you pointed at are not with anyone I had any conflict with.

I believe I encountered RexxS on Template talk:Navbox and he gets it; gets me, too. Thanks, RexxS. His point is that I've done a lot of good work here; technical stuff that will have huge value.

Have you seen Sue Gardner's video? You should; everyone should. It's about what's wrong with this awful place, a wiki that's grown a hide and is not open to newcomers, that is unacceptably resistant to change, that is all about fighting and (metaphorically) murdering Nuns and Tourists with AK-47s. That's not just me saying that; it the WMF's Executive Director. This is a lot of what's causing the huge battles I'm seeing everywhere I go. See the url: /pigsonthewing/ That's User:Pigsonthewing, who recorded the video and who is behind WP:HLIST (kudos, too, to User:Edokter and User:WOSlinker, who've helped tremendously). They all would likely have good things to say about all of my contributions.

I've spent the last 24 hours autoblocked as PMoW used this IP recently (recently was two months ago!). Could you fix that, please?

This is an awful place, really. Alarbus (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing forcing you to edit here. And while you may be allowed to change your account to run away, you don't do it three times - and you definitely don't edit using those accounts concurrently. Or else we end up in situations like these. Read Wikipedia:Clean start for more on this. Just don't do this again. Oh, and I'm not going to get into an argument about the pros and cons of the community here. All I'll say is this: arguments happen, people disagree. Especially here on Wikipedia you have to learn to work constructively with others.

Anyway, I've modified the block on PMoW so autoblock is disabled. You were able to edit here, though, so things are fine then? Or something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was considering just giving-up; closed-community, and all. I have read 'clean start' which is why I moved to new topic areas. I'll leave you to your take on the arguments and disagreements, but do recommend that you find an hour and a half to view Sue's presentation. She sees the problems, and said she'll hold herself responsible if Wikipedia dies (said she'd hold others responsible, too). She also said that things are going to start moving at greater than the speed of consensus.

Thanks for clearing that bit; I was waiting for it to time-out before being able to post here. The offered unblock template included my IP, which I've no desire to make public. Alarbus (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking for guidance

For some reason I had to do a lot of SPI reports recently, and I realised that some things are not completely clear to me as I got some checking rejected that I think was similar to cases when it was accepted in the past, sometimes even after filing an SPI request without checking. Most importantly, the rules for (not) connecting named accounts to dynamic IPs with a non-empty contribution history who are clearly not cases of accidental logged-out editing seem to have changed, or maybe I never understood them. Which options should I consider in such cases in the future?

• Ask for checkuser as I have sometimes done before, but with the understanding that it will normally be declined to minimise the public information but is somehow helpful anyway? This could make sense depending on what non-public actions are taken in response.
• Ask for a DUCK-based action with the risk of collateral damage or incorrectly blaming the named account?
• Email the checkuser list so that action can be taken, if appropriate, without publicly connecting the IP to the account?
• File a report under the IP address while mentioning / hinting at / not mentioning the suspected named account?

Maybe it also makes a difference if part of the information has already been public, such as when connecting an editor of obvious nationality to a dynamic IP in the country's capital?

Maybe the guidance at WP:SPI should also be clarified. At the moment it seems to speak only about the exposure of IPs that were not reported due to a relevant edit history. Hans Adler 10:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the Wikimedia checkuser policy and the privacy policy, we just don't connect people to IPs. Your IP is considered somewhat private, so we'd be revealing personal information about people. If you suspect an account of editing as an IP as well, then list it as a case as normal - but don't ask for a checkuser. We are still more than able block them on behavioral grounds. Does that help? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Apparently I misremembered what I thought was former common practice. I'll keep this in mind from now on. Hans Adler 14:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied and provided clarifications explaining the validity of the case in this SPI case. Salvidrim! 01:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued AfD disruption by User:WölffReik

HelloAnnyong, would you take a look at this discussion and block WölffReik (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption? You were involved with this user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike already blocked that account. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But only for a week. I defer to Hello and others as to whether a more drastic penalty should have been imposed. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the week is fine given the reason - this one edit. Personally I can't justify an indef block off of that, and I don't see any socking going on here either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A week to prevent further disruption at the AfD is fine. Thank you both for your attention to the matter. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Attack of Mr.choppers

I have received the attack from Mr.choppers here and here. Please warn to Mr.choppers. Moreover, Mr.choppers is doing obstinately incomprehensible edit. It seems that Mr.choppers thought that two fire trucks were introduced. Mr.choppers should accept and apologize for Mr.choppers mistake. DigitalShop78 (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx#Suspected sockpuppets.
Message added 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Commander _{(Ping me)} 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet at Iraqi Turkmens

Hello Annoyong, there has been a lot of sock-puppets at Iraqi Turkmens. I believe that User:MamRostam03 now seems to have created a new user name "User:KakaSur" in order to continue disrupting the article.Turco85 (Talk) 15:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the account, but you could have added a new case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Help

Concerning this: newbie - User talk:186.73.132.154 seems to actually be this editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus/Archive, apparently acting as a new account, please check into this. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Two reports

Hi HelloAnnyong. Could you please take a look at two reports on two suspicious accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I? Much appreciated. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Check your email

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI

[6] Thanks for combining those. I'm sorry, I didn't notice the SPI until after reporting the IP via Twinkle, because I worked out who it User:198.234.45.207 was separately from the deleted articles (after eir request on my talk), and didn't see the report/block (as it was range-block). Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not your area of focus, but...

I was wondering if you could look into a new issue that seems to be cropping up here The incident was moved to the archive, but remains unresolved. I believe the IP in question has not edited in awhile, which may be why the case was archived, that or no action was taken. I'm not sure where to go from here, however I wish some action could have been taken before the case was archived. Any thoughts? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Skeptics

In the complaint against the Skeptics organization, you indicated that the user accounts identified in the complaint did not exist. On that basis you closed the complaint and recommended that other admins delete it.

But they do exist. So I added links in the complaint pointing to the talk pages of the accounts.

Please let me know if that clarifies.

Many thanks for your time and consideration on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sju hav

Hi, would you mind also blocking IP 83.241.234.4? He's the one giving us the most headache. Thanks, --Eisfbnore ^talk 08:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And 85.165.229.124 as well please. --Eisfbnore ^talk 17:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Which edit got him/her the block? Looks good faith to me. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

101 Luftballons, Swedishsven, Knowalles, Istochleukzonnaam, etc.

Need some help and guidance here. Reference to this case. As I predicted 101 Luftballons, as a clear sockpuppet of the complex, has returned and committed the same international vandalism as was committed in January on October 26, 2011 in: es, hif, ja, simple, and sv. I stumbled on this by accident and have corrected it where possible, but what can we do to prevent a repeat here? --_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you asking me? What articles are we looking at? When did this person last edit? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the answers to your questions can be found in the two links that the above user provided. But, if not enough, you can see here that two of the (at least 8) sockpuppets were already given a global lock for exactly the same cross-wiki abuse as committed by "101 Luftballons". So the above user is almost certainly right in his assumption that this is just another sockpuppet of the same person. Paul K. (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Luftballons hasn't edited since May 2011, so I'm not going to take action against an account that's seven months stale. Let me know if that changes. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? Certainly not

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.137.152.169/Archive

I simply have variable IP, this is not under my control, it automatically switches on computer startup, reboot or longer inactivity. I can't help it. I am playing strictly to the rules, as you can see from my edits. See Alprazolam, Temazepam and many others. 70.137.129.225 (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up - I appreciate your honesty. I'll keep this in mind if it comes up again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at wp:Sockpuppet investigations/41.130.91.244

You are invited to join the discussion at wp:Sockpuppet investigations/41.130.91.244. Shrike (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhazard9

I'm frustrated by your ruling because I'm convinced they are the same and I thought the extensive evidence I provided was strong—and it seemed like you did too when you asked for checkuser. Your comment "I mean yes, they do have a lot of articles in common, but there's a lot of articles that one account edited that the other did not." makes me think you did not consider all the evidence. In fact, I mentioned this pattern as support for Otto being a single purpose account, which would support it being a sock. Would you please consider asking other clerks to comment instead of assuming meaning from their silence? I think it's likely that the reason for inactivity is the amount of evidence. I understand that clerks must be busy and do not want to spend much time on something like this, but this editor has driven away editors from an important topic (plastic surgery) that does not have much activity to begin with.--Taylornate (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that the holidays are over I'd really appreciate a response.--Taylornate (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Otto Placik (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since the case was opened. The account is stale as far as I'm concerned, so I'm not going to take action against it. The case is closed and archived, and no other clerks cared to comment on it. Also keep in mind that sockpuppet cases are not meant to be ways to circumvent edit wars or content battles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be pointless to spend effort on a stale account, but he's been around for 2.5 years—you really think he's gone because he's been inactive for a couple weeks? I'm not trying to circumvent anything, I firmly believe these are the same person and that the evidence is strong. What exactly does your action mean? Can the case be reopened at some point? Can I ask another clerk to comment on it?--Taylornate (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If the account becomes active again, you can relist and give more evidence. As it stands now, there's not really any reason to reopen. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for telling me about that... I didn't realize that I put it down incorrectly and am about to change it right now. Van Gulik (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sierra McCormick

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sierra McCormick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The-Pope (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bahamas Habitat Deletion

Why was the entry for Bahamas Habitat deleted?

Stephen W. Merritt Treasurer Bahamas Habitat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.11.142 (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was Bahamas Habitat deleted on 11-05-2011?

I have never heard of a Meghan.reilly.

Thank you,

Steve Merritt

Treasurer

Bahamas Habitat ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywagon5 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Still working on the vertical learning curve of speaking in Wiki.

Still trying to figure out why the entry was deleted. I have never heard of a Meghan.reilly.

Please let me know what is the next step to getting the article reinstated.

Thanks,

Steve Merritt ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywagon5 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Tylershineon

The case hasn't been closed yet, but 79.180.108.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same guy.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion nomination category

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I marked the a sockpuppet empty category for deletion here . This is nothing against you personally, but I really don't agree with that template being used because its empty and a CheckUser confirmed these suspected sockpuppets into confirmed. If you don't agree with me you can undo the change. Thank you for the help! --Katarighe (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine - I deleted the category. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI Clerking

Hi there. I have a request; I'm interested in helping out in the administrative tasks on wikipedia, and in particular I'd like to help with clerking at SPI. I don't have a lot of experience, but I'm a fast learner and would really enjoy helping out in the long run. I noticed that you're one of the current clerks and was wondering if you'd consider taking me on as a trainee? Just for the record, I've also asked User:Spitfire. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Honestly I don't think you have enough experience on Wikipedia right now. Less than 2000 edits is a little low for me. When you've got some more experience I'd be happy to consider you again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I won't ask you for a number as I feel edit counts can be misleading, but given my current level of activity, how much time do you feel would be necessary for me to gain the appropriate experience? And is there anything I can do to assist at SPI in general at a lower level which would help me learn the ropes? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all of our clerks are admins, so for us to consider a non-admin clerk would be a big step. More is better in this case. As to low-level stuff, I'm not sure there's really all that much that you could assist with... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your help anyway. I hope this didn't seem spurious, one doesn't get if one doesn't ask I guess! I'm sure I'll come crawling back at some point. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 05:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ace Baker SPI

Just wanted to check with you on the above referenced SPI. While you blocked the puppet, the master remains free to edit, lacking even a notification on his profile that he violated the sockpuppet policy. Was the decision not to block the master intentional? Or merely an oversight? If intentional, can you let me know what your thoughts are on this? I appreciate your help. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It was an intentional decision. It was the account's first time socking, and it's infrequent and rare enough that I don't see much reason in blocking the master. Relist if it happens again, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

REPLY REQUSTED - Vandal on Chinatown, San Francisco Page

There's a pro-NYC vandal on the San Francisco Chinatown who's been making changes and re-igniting SF vs. NYC Chinatown war (i.e. SF one of the largest, NYC THE LARGEST). It looks like it might be Thmc1, as user is not logged in & making edits w/IP address. WOULD LIKE TO REWUEST YOU INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION. He is citing biased magazine articles as his sources, even though the sources citing the SF Chinatown page as largest are factually researched from the US Census Bureau(i.e. city-data.com, which has data for all communities in the US). His other pro-NY edits to the SF Chinatown page are also factually incorrect, and he's even assusing other editors undoing his edits of bing vandals. Please expedite this mater ASAP.

Update: I forgot to mention that the IP address of the user making the edits is 96.242.217.91. After looking throuhg Thmc1's block log I found that this is the very same IP that an investigation was opened on sometime ago. So, I guess I'm not the only here who thinks it might be Thmc1 trying to sneak his way back onto WiKi. I WOULD ALSO ADVISE THAT YOU PLACE A SPECIAL LOCK ON the Chinatown, San Francisco page so that only authorized can make edits, and the changes take effect after being checked upon by other users.

HanJinwu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Some of his more recent edits to the "Chinatown, San Francisco" page include changing the wording of the HighBinder Tong Wars section, inserting "supposedly" a few times because he believes that such events never occured. These events, on th contrary, have been well-documented by Chinatown historians, in books, tv documentaries, and is even a main feaure at the city's Chinese Historical Society. He's obviously trying to downplay the historical importance of SF Chinatown vs. Manhattan's — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanJinwu (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

HOOTmag sock

Hello Annyong,

Another obvious HOOTmag/Bluesurfers sock [7], User:Purpleflights. Note the username and single-purposeness on the account, namely Developed country. Athenean (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Then open a case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sock

Kiftaan is Lagoo sab. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1#23 December 2011. Mar4d (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You really expect me to block that account just on your whim? Open a case and give your evidence, and we can discuss it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but please do read the recent comments on that page. Mar4d (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, this Mar4d is a confirmed sock [8] of User:Strider11, who has been using many socks to edit Pakistani pages the same way Mar4d is doing now. He claims to be based in Pakistan but now he has admitted that he's in Australia [9], where Strider11 is. I believe that Mar4d did this so that others don't connect him to the banned Strider11.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already given my reasons, there's no need for you to start your rant all over again on talk pages. Let HelloAnnyong read the page and decide for himself. Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You came here to rant about me first.--Kiftaan (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not use my talk page as a place to yell at each other. If you want to make an accusation, open an SPI case. I've said that like fifteen times... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why have you archived the case, when it hasn't been solved yet? There's another user, Ian.thomson, who's also started a latest thread at Kiftaan's talk page on this controversy. He's opened a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The user who cried sock. Mar4d (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hi HA, as noted below, I've blocked someone based on all this, the ANI and the SPIs + this particular SPI. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

iamtrhino again

here is yet another sock User:ShanuAvtararit. i couldn't file a report as the sock investigation page of iamthrino is protected.-- altetendekrabbe  12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI and user page vandalizing.

Hi, since you are the admin who responded to this case can you take a look at the comments that were placed there after your actioning of the case. Some editor, who I've never interacted with, is alleging me to be a sock of some editor I don't know based on the fact that I'm getting the article Pakistan formally peer reviewed (along with 2 other editors) to get it back to FA and making major contributions to it. He has recently vandalized my user page by adding a sockpuppet tag to it and has done the same to many others as per his contributions (he has also vandalized the mentioned SPI page and placed his own decisions in the conclusion section). Per his comments, any Pakistani who edits Pakistan related pages is a sock. The areas of my interest are Pakistan related articles and I've edited all in a legit way. Although I don't know this editor but my edits are ten times that of his and the way he seems to know all the wiki policies, he seems a sleeper/sock himself. He further represents (purposely) the on wiki (and open to be viewed by the community) constructive collaboration between me and Mar4d as meat-puppetry. I'll report him at WP:AVI if he adds the tag again, but the comments about me at the SPI to which I'm unrelated call for a Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Adding a suspected sock tag is not vandalism. I suspect that you are a sleeper sock of Ironboy11 and an admin will check this in the SPI.
2. You share alot of similarities with Ironboy11, and it may turn out that you are also behind other socks i.e. September88 (talk · contribs). Let's face it, there appears to be a big Sock Party going on in the Indian/Pakistani pages. The history of "Pakistan" shows that after Ironboy11 was indef-blocked new socks came to continue Ironboy11's edits and you came a month after him.[10] In fact, that article was edited mostly by socks [11] after socks [12] after socks.[13] It clearly means that a banned editor (or editors) is using new socks to edit the same page now.
3. A lot of overlaps between you and Ironboy11. [14] You began editing in October 2011 [15], just after Ironboy11 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked. Now you took over his edits on the same pages (i.e. [16]).
4. You and Mar4d are also Meat puppeting.--Kiftaan (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi HA, as noted above, I've blocked someone based on all this, the ANI and the SPIs + this particular SPI. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mrpontiac1

Sorry about that, but it was User:Shekhar.yaadav that misled me, I just copied that name. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlasdairGreen27

I left an explanation at the case page, and I ask you please to reconsider your decition. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jane1222556

Added additional comments here. Calabe1992 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Comment at AIN

Hi! Care to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ip claiming to be LiteralKa? Cheers! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm blocked in 3 minutes. That was fast. Never mind. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for what?

Would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poeticbent/Archive, what was it, exactly, that Cezary Barylka was blocked for? Pre-emtpive clarification: if he was blocked for disruption from another account, could you clearly explain what account, and what disruption? Thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Cezary was confirmed by checkuser as being the same as A. Kupicki (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked as a confirmed sock of Poeticbent. In other words, it's Poeticbent further evading their block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Right. But you did not answer my question. Can you tell me what is it that Poeticbent did, and you are enforcing by block? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Poeticbent was blocked for abusing multiple accounts; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Poeticbent. I'm not getting into this argument with you; you previously had it out with Fut Perf on here. Take it up with Fut Perf if you have an issue. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that if FP would say he sees no grounds for blocking Poeticbent, you would be ok with unblocking CB, yes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then, if you support the block, as a blocking admin you have the responsibility to justify it. Let me ask again: what is the justification of Poeticbent's block? Based on the link you provided me, I see he has operated several accounts, but I see no indication of any disruption, and looking at WP:SOCK, I see there are situations in which this is allowed. I kindly ask you to tell me how was Poeticbent abusing his socks. As an admin who blocked the latest one, an account that was not disruptive in any shape or form, but was blocked, in your own words, solely based on the connection with Poeticbent, I'd assume that you would know what was the original disruption that caused that editor to be banned from this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI case

I invite you to another SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AramaeanSyriac. Shmayo (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

2012

Season's Greetings & Happy New Year. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts on SPI pages, although I do hope our friend will stop in 2012. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uobquetta

It looks, on more flimsy evidence, such as use of files contributed at wiki commons, and their mutual puppeteering activities, that User:Uobquetta may be a new account of the banned sockpuppeteer User:Pd1 uob. Their commons contribs are: Pd1_uob and Uobquetta. I can't see the deleted contibutions of Uobquetta on en wiki to confirm this suspicion. I'd have added this to the SPI but it's now closed. Advice? Thanks. Bazj (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting find. There's no overlap in their deleted contributions, but there's one little thing that makes me mildly suspicious. The evidence isn't really strong enough to block, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neurorel/Archive

Hi! When you have a few minutes, please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish#Help Needed. Something's not quite right, but I'm at a loss to make sense of it all. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that 75.85.170.133 is Edgeform. What I'm not sure about is who 66.27.48.50 is. Both IPs geolocate to San Diego, so I can't help but wonder if they're both Edgeform - which, admittedly, would be weird. I've blocked the 75 IP for a week for block evasion, and I've blocked the other IP for a potentially outing edit summary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. A couple of things more:

• There's a similar edit summary at Mirror neuron that also needs to be hidden.
• Aside from the technical block evasion by posting on my user talk, I tend to think that Edgeform/75.85.170.133 was actually reaching out to me in good faith, and may have been incorrectly blocked as a result of the SP investigation. Here's some background. The page where the issues arose is a BLP of a notable scientist in San Diego, some of whose research is about the causes of autism. There is also, separately from anything the BLP subject does, a lot of fringe science about the causes of autism, that attracts a certain amount of POV-driven disruptive editing. It's possible that Neurorel/Edgeform are part of that disruption, but also possible that they are editing in good faith: the DUCK/behavioral aspects are very ambiguous. Ever since Edgeform's SPI block, Neurorel has been editing as normal, as though unaware of the block. Whoever 66.27.48.50 is, they would have to be a rather stupid sock to put up those edit summaries if they wanted to remain undetected. It was like saying, look at me, I'm socking. Yet, if they are all one person, Neurorel is smart enough not to let on, and Edgeform's postings on my talk are smart enough to display familiarity with edit histories. None of that fits with the IP edit summary. Now add to this that there are probably lab group members and others in San Diego who don't like seeing certain edits about the BLP. Perhaps, 66.27.48.50 was someone clumsily trying to get Neurorel and Edgeform blocked. I don't know. I feel as though just geolocating to San Diego may not tell us enough. It's a mess, and I'm not confident of anything, but my gut says to question the Edgeform block.
• On the other hand, I guess Edgeform could be a sock of Neurorel, and the IP 66.27.48.50 was someone else trying to out them, in which case only now did Neurorel discover the block of the Edgeform account.

What do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, uhh... I don't know. Their blocks are up in a few days, so I guess we'll see what happens after? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First, let me suggest hiding that edit summary at Mirror neuron, an edit summary just like the other one. Aside from that, I guess we could see whether Neurorel makes any edits while the IP addresses are blocked. I'm concerned, though, that the block of the Edgeform IP prevents what might be a good faith attempt to clear up a mistaken block (contacting me at my user talk and being entirely open about who they are doesn't really seem to me to be block evasion). What do you think of asking the two checkusers who took part in the SPIs (Tiptoety and WilliamH) to look at our discussion here and see if they have any suggestions? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I missed that other revision. Anyway, are you challenging whether Neurorel == Edgeform? They're almost certainly the same based on behavior, and the CU results reflect that. Accounts that sock don't get a pass just because they may have good data or whatever. If they are the same then Neurorel's down to one account; if they're not the same, then Edgeform should follow standard procedure and ask for an unblock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that what you say makes sense. Please understand that I was never arguing for an unblock based on edit quality, only based on my increasingly strong conviction that 66.27.48.50 was neither of the named accounts, and was acting in bad faith to out them and get them blocked. But you make a very sensible and persuasive argument that this does not change the SPI decision. I'm going to leave a message at 75.85.170.133's talk telling them that the Edgeform account must go through the process of requesting an unblock if they maintain that they are not Neurorel, and that there is nothing more that I am able to do for them; instead, they will need to convince an administrator that no socking took place. Thanks again for the time and thought that you put into this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI irregularity.

Hi HelloAnnyong, you recently closed this SPI investigation. It's a strange situation, but I think you might have overlooked the point here by excusing the behavior of Basil Rock. It wasn't just a username issue. This is a person who was blocked for their username, so they changed usernames, then separately recreated the blocked username and edited with both accounts simultaneously. How is this not the very definition of sock puppetry? Can you take another look at it? Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've responded there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

How report new socks?

I would like to ask two questions in relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HenryVIIIyes. First, in a few SPI cases that I think I remember from the past, there was a link to the archive on the page. I see the link in the history (you recently archived it), but should the link be on the page? Second, is there a formal procedure for reporting follow-up DUCK socks? I could go to the talk page of an admin who blocked one of the previous socks, but I'm wondering if there is some place I cannot find where I am supposed to report things like this obvious new sock: JohnNotunique (talk · contribs). WP:SPI seems overkill. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the note at the top of my talk page? Go to WP:SPI, put HenryVIIIyes as the master in the box in the middle, and follow the instructions. You can put anyone you want there - duck socks, regular accounts, whatever. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

new sockpuppet for same Atlanta user

Hi, the abusive user in Atlanta is editing with a new sockpuppet Keizers (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There is one fresh IP

User:220.255.1.141 this was very recent (a few hours ago) -- it is what spurred the SPI. Thanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh what? What case is this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation backlog

As I have already notified your fellow clerk, there has been no progress in this sockpuppet investigation for a couple of days and it has become a distraction from other more serious issues I'm dealing with. Could you please take a look? Thanks.--Andriabenia (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen

Per this: if it is SRQ (which I am utterly convinced it is), then the only real conflict between the banned editor vs. either of the unbanned "Doc" editors is why SRQ cannot understand why they were banned to begin with. As usual, they are ferreted out because of their harassment of other users and general incompetence as an editor on a collaborative project. The more I look at this new account's edits, the more diffs I can provide. Doc talk 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, please go ahead and add some of those diffs to the SPI case. Right now there's a discussion going about the need for more evidence, so the more the better (without being so much that it goes into TLDR). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I popped one in here (regarding the fact that SRQ is the #2 editor on that tiny article with 18 edits and Lhb1239 already has 5) in fear that I was already bloating the report. I tend to like diffs :) I'll keep gathering the evidence, and those diffs will only add to the strength of my accusation. I'll try not to get too preachy, but I am quite familiar with this case. Cheers :> Doc talk 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've added a ton more evidence to the SPI, and I have looked very hard to exclude SRQ as being Lhb1239, as I really would hate to be wrong about something like this. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that these accounts are operated by the same user - none. Some of the most obvious points:

• Being from not only Washington state, but the exact same region that SRQ is from.
• Stalking DocOfSoc with not only straight reverts and alterations[17][18] on articles that she blatantly followed DOS to, but the massive "rewriting" of articles DOS had been working on[19][20] (also, with no other logical conclusion as to how they got there if they weren't actively stalking DOS).
• Appearing at extremely obscure articles that SRQ is either the #1 or #2 contributor to.[21][22][23][24][25][26] SRQ, like most editors, watchlisted the pages she contributed to and fought vandalism attempts against them. Even if Lhb1239 made one vandalism revert on each page, the odds of them watchlisting all of these small pages, or randomly coming across them in vandalism patrols, and not being SRQ are absolutely beyond remote.
• A complete lack of understanding of policy, especially EW - so much so that they have been blocked twice for edit-warring themselves and have initiated 1 successful vs. 7 failed reports against others,[27] coupled with general nastiness and condescension to most of the editors she has encountered on talk pages (and through her brand of "BRRD").
• The hypocrisy. How does one put "I'm not fond of aggressive discussion" as the third tenet of their user page, yet come off with remarks like this? Not exactly the "warm and fuzzy" editor they claim to be after all - just like SRQ. She has always denied socking, yet the evidence shows that to be a lie in the past, and a lie right now.
• The "point-by-point" responses pointed out in the SPI. This is classic SRQ, and I can't even remember another editor using this tactic to dismiss the arguments of another they way she does.

I could go on for awhile, but hopefully you can see that there is no other logical conclusion as to who this actually is. The behavior never changes, only the account names. There is no overlap between any of the confirmed or suspected socks of SRQ that I can find. DocOfSoc did not ask to be followed around and reverted by this banned editor, and neither did the others who are being revealed as having extremely unpleasant discourse with this person, so the escalation is completely on the banned editor's part. I'm sure the CU evidence on SRQ is stale, we know she hops around on wireless IPs and the like, and we already have Lhb1239 admitting that they are from the northern Puget Sound area of Washington. The reason she hasn't even responded to the SPI report so far when she has been so diligent about maintaining "her" talk page is because she knows she has been busted. I know I'd be furious if someone accused me of being a sock when I really wasn't - wouldn't most? Whether another clerk takes up your offer to chime in, or if it takes a month to close it: it is her. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

reply

Actually, the most recent activity was 2011-12-16 -- just three weeks ago. Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you didn't list that IP on the page, so I didn't know to check it. Anyway, aside from that IP there's been nothing from anyone related to that account, so there isn't anything to act on. None of the other accounts are blocked or anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2

Hi.

Having read your message, I looked through all the socks of Satt 2. I decided to collapse me comments into a box and add two further comments, after looking at all the contributions of the socks. Andriabenia thinks they can remove my collapse boxes and has been edit warring over that. Please could you advise them that they have no right to tamper with my edits in this way. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I should be limited to standard layout , so should Mathsci. I do not want to look like I'm talking to myself.--Andriabenia (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you're talking to yourself - it looks like Mathsci wrote a lot and was just condensing their notes. Seriously, leave it alone - do you really want to be blocked for edit warring on a case where you're suspected of being a sock? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont want to be blocked but its unfair that he gets to use special features.--Andriabenia (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to display my evidence in a readable way. In this case it was only HelloAnnyong's comment today that made me aware of how many very recent sockpuppets of Satt 2 there have been. I spent over 1 1/2 hours reviewing the editing of all the listed sockpuppets accounts and that made me decide on a format change. I have not removed any content (I could if I wished) and it's easy enough to read the evidence. I should not have been placed in the position where I have no control over what I add, when it is within the normal editing framework. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of you, just leave the damn case alone for now. Seriously. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the only thing going on at the moment, unfortunately. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andriabenia (1) reported by User:Mathsci (Result: ) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andriabenia (2) reported by User:Mathsci (Result: ). But I have nothing more to add at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your rangecontrib toolserver tool

is truly great, but 50 edits say almost nothing and don't allow to set any reasonable time for a block. If possible, please extend it to at least 200. Pagination is fine. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, it does. Try the 'Next set' link under the table. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does :-) Sorry, I looked at some range with <500 contribs! Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

CU

Hello HelloAnnyong - Happy New Year. I noticed this SPI and was wondering if it might be better to leave it open for a full checkuser, as there are other accounts that appear similar to me (edit similar AFDs).  7  08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can give sufficient evidence to warrant a look at those other accounts, or to show that there's reason to suspect other accounts are active, then do so on the page and we can take a look. As it stands, though, there's not much reason. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

TyneGRPR

I have no idea how you'd think Eric444 was related to this. Eric444 is a good faith contributor who's been here since 2007. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly it was these two edits. That's not really enough to go on, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The only reason Eric444 removed the info is because it was cited to Twitter accounts at the time. Eric444's edit summary even cites WP:V. It's clear that Eric444 was removing it in good faith. TyneGRPR et al. are removing it now that a reputable source has been added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why I didn't act on anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see.[28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You can safely ignore the ANI discussion. It was closed because I posted it in the wrong venue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

More on Edgeform etc.

The "outing" IP is back, at another IP address. Please see [29] and [30]. I guess you need to block that one too, and hide those edit summaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up. This has been taken care of. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Question?

I have an investigation open where a username and an IP are the chief concern. I listed potential older socks to reference a pattern (and because the form was set up that way), however it made it more difficult to "keep it simple." Is there anyway to do a CheckUser if the master is using the same anonymous IP? What about for potential "sleepers"? And is there anything than can be done to speed this process along? Thanks so much. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• What wiki-term best describes a user who obsessively watches, reverts, & harasses users on the same pages? Just a terminology question. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • • That'd be stalking. As to your case: no, CU will not connect an IP to an account. Since the other two accounts you listed on that case are very stale, there's nothing that a CU would do there; it all has to be judged based on evidence. You filed your case one day ago, so have a little patience - the clerks don't all sit around waiting for cases to come up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I lost an account due to move / death in the family, & have more than "mere 76" edits. Not concerned about "boomerang" but thanks for the "heads up." ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Apologies, but my account didn't notify me you responded. You failed to put a block on the sock master's current account, which is the key here, and should to be tagged out of respect for the other editors. Don't think a week is going to cover it. Previous sock master's username had to be blocked indefinitely, IP 6 months-- it's in the archives, and the in the edit summaries I provided. Respectfully, "HelloAnnyong," this user appears to be somewhat of a chronic stalker/troll/warrior, and a sneaky one. I was thorough: I don't like to see this, and because I really don't want to have to file another investigation. Respectfully. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Which I wanted to add, that for a random university IP, seems odd that out of 500+ reverts, that there are no edits involving academic subjects (science, nature, biology, etc.), just the same exact reverts / trolling of the same username, who is now leaving annoying, deceptive messages on my talk page. Thanks again. 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasC.Wolfe (talk • contribs)
            • No, I didn't fail to do any of that. You seem to have missed the part where I question your motives. You've got less than 100 edits, yet you're going to tell me how and when to block? I can't help but think that you might be the good hand of another account. Oh, and don't threaten me with opening another case - that's not the way to get things done. If anything, you're the one who's harping on this case. And don't canvass other administrators about this, either - that's poor form. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OccamTheRazor

Sorry for not listing the sockmaster; I was concerned about outing. I've now listed the sockmaster and some supporting evidence; but, unfortunately, the page is still under OccamTheRazor (the alleged sockpuppet) and not PaulTheOctopus (the alleged sockmaster). I would have corrected the template, but I've never filed such a report before and I did not want to break any more conventions than I probably already have.Cumulant (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the case - take a look at that page for more. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle a sock

You closed and archived an SPI case five hours after it was submitted on August 25, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AceD/Archive, and you noted, "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." See also this related discussion from your talk page. I find it a little ironic that Computer Guy 2 (talk · contribs) would file an SPI, and display his understanding of sockpuppet policy on your talk page, just one day after creating a sockpuppet of his own: Solo I Fatti (talk · contribs)

I'm not asking for your opinion on whether socking is occurring; I'm already treating that as obvious fact. The 100% overlap in edited articles between these two SPA accounts; the frequent signing of comments by both accounts with "In Good Faith"; identical login times and periods of no editing, etc. -- it passes the duck test with flying colors, and makes the filing of an SPI report a mere formality. I would, however, like your input on two things:

• Does this socking qualify as actionable "abusive sockpuppetry"? Commenting on an article as Computer Guy 2, then editing that same article 22 minutes later as Solo I Fatti seems deceptive to me. Starting a discussion about an article as Computer Guy 2, then three comments later arguing in that same thread, from the same POV, as Solo I Fatti, also seems deceptive.
• How long should I postpone filing this SPI so as to avoid being accused of trying "to deal with an edit war through alternative means"? ;-) You see, I've recently reverted some "Solo I Fatti" edits, and I'm now being subjected to personal attacks and other unpleasantries by him, including an accusation that I must be a sockpuppet of other editors that have also reverted his edits. Facepalm

Fun stuff. Your input, before I proceed, would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Just open the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

He's back

In less than a day, Ukboxen is back as 109.123.93.228 and is still undoing all of my edits.

Is there anyway to stop him from making more and more IPs? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually TheShadowCrow should have mentioned that UkBoxen is a reincarnation of User38563 created after two heavy rangeblocks of mine (178.99.0.0/16 and 178.105.0.0/16) where most of the abuse happened. Also Vitali-golota looks like a clear case of further evasion which would then indeed add 109.123.93.228. Seems to be inclined to use any Ip available. Might be worthwhile to update the sp investigation withe main master but i wasn't sure how to do it. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've opened another case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arfaz.
Message added 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly have a look at the page for more comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI Padmal

Hey, Padmal has come back after a long time, and we are yet to welcome him with a bouquet. Wp:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. Please accept the honour of presenting it to him. ;) X.One ^SOS 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Peace ;-)

Thanks to my would-be nemesis, SRQ, we got off on the wrong foot. I sincerely hope we can now have a fresh start. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Guidance/Clarification

Hello Hello lol (sorry couldn't resist...sure you've seen that a million times) I am one of the many editors who watch and contribute to Circumcision and noticed you as the last admin who blocked User talk:Joe Circus. I have no issue with the block as he is clearly a puppet master but wish to make sure other users are not summarily blocked without proper compelling evidence. I'm referring to this proxy block by user:Kanonkas and subsequent label by user:jayjg. It's also true that the IP has not requested an unblock and may very well be a sock of Joe Circus but I've seen no evidence on the sock and open proxy noticeboards. I also find it curious that Kanonkas has not edited since April of last year and only 4 edits at that. What brought him out of retirement to block an open proxy and why was there no mention of this being a sock of Joe Circus? I have queried [31] Kanonkas to no avail and find communication with Jayjg pointless. I was hoping you could look into the matter or point me in the right direction or if I'm being paranoid please tell me to bugger off and I shall. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If the IP was a proxy then it was correctly blocked. Per WP:PROXY, open proxies are not allowed on Wikipedia. If you're questioning the tagging of the IP's page, well, that's another story. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm not questioning the block but the circumstances that precipitated it and the evidence to label it a sock of Joe Circus. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how Jajyg came to that conclusion; you may want to ask them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Report

Hi HelloAnnyong. Not sure if Hetoum I and Xebulon are one, but please look into this new evidence. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential sock

In regards to the Sock case I filed earlier that you closed, it would appear that the user(s) made an account (The Witer 20) and screwed around with my user page. While I tend to be understanding, I wasn't born yesterday and it doesn't seem like much of a coincidence. If you could look into this I'd appreciate it. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tnxman307 {{UsernameHardBlocked}} him. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Fun27

Can you look at Fun27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), clearly another sock. Mtking ^(edits) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fun27 (talk · contribs) indef'd as sock of User:Edinburghgeo, 129.215.4.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Blocked, 24, for Evasion, G5 - Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that stuff, DQ. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

hey its not my speculation its a fact, what do you know, have you even seen the show, what do you do just look around wikipedia and revert peoples knowledge