User talk:DoRD

Welcome to my talk page.

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Giatharodaki is back

I am suspicious that giatharodaki has built a new account named Daki122,I request a checkuser,I am sure the account is a sock puppet.Alhanuty (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just filed a report about his new account Daki122.Alhanuty (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I'll take a look at the report later if someone else doesn't do something about it first. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The report has been out for three days and nobody is responding or using the checkuser to confirm that Daki122 is a sockpuppet.Alhanuty (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	To DoRD, for diligently and quietly updating the functionary activity statistics, I award this Admin's Barnstar. Thank you for all your work! AGK [•] 11:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ;) —DoRD (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear! Hear!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocked user - checkuser powers required

Hi DoRD. Would you mind taking a look at WilliamH's block of the 68.247.0.0/16 range here? I'm currently looking into an unblock request from User:Etonmessisthebest, who's caught in that particular rangeblock. Please could you amend the block to remove autoblock or grant him IP exemption if you deem it wise? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the block to allow logged-in users to edit, so they should be good to go now. —DoRD (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd socks

Hi DoRD,

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cognoscerapo, you said that User:Cannot be detected was likely to be Sinbad Barron.
How did you make the Cognoscerapo - Sinbad Barron connection? I'd like to detect socks better, and I'm not very familiar with Sinbad Barron. Presumably Sinbad Barron is stale from a checkuser perspective so there are fewer privacy concerns, but if you're not allowed to say, you don't have to.
In the past there has been some confusion around who controls which socks - there are several examples like Neutral Fair Guy. I'm certainly not criticising other people who have tried to identify sockmasters and clean up the mess - it's just that an environment with multiple overlapping sockmasters (and a few false-flag accounts) makes it very difficult to be certain of the owner 100% of the time...

Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after going back over the evidence, I have had to change my conclusions in the case. I'm not very familiar with Sinbad Barron, either, but I did see one possible connection from Cannot be detected. However, the account's contributions and some other technical evidence point squarely at Evlekis, so I amended my statement. Granted, it is sometimes difficult to sort out the true master behind sock accounts, particularly with certain ISPs, but I took my best guess. Unfortunately, it was wrong this time. Thank you for prompting me about this. —DoRD (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is a user being a jerk and kicking up a huge fuss about things against any rules?

I have send user Niteshift36 a message about his behaviour that was just so horrible that I just could not resist speaking up. He responded by calling me a troll. So I do not think he'll respond to users calling him out on his behaviour. I'm not sure if there's a wikipedia policy handling (Personal attack removed), so I'm asking you here. :)

An example of his lovely demeanour: Talk:Fox_News_Channel --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You own words show your error. You said "I have send user Niteshift36 a message about his behaviour that was just so horrible that I just could not resist speaking up" You cited nothing specif, just came to my page, littering it with comments like "I can't resist letting you know how disgusted I am with your attitude"[1]. That's not constructive. that is you making a personal attack. That's your personal opinion about conduct, not a discussion about a specific edit as it pertains to a policy. Then you come here and use words like "douchbaggery" and "jerk". I'm sure DoRD will be able to explain to you why you've handled this wrong from the start. On top of all of this, I haven't edited that article since Sept. Breezing into my page 3 months after the fact to express your opinion is not going to be productive either. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite your comments on Talk:Fox_News_Channel both here and in my comment to you, Niteshift36. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with quoting part of my message out of context. --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, your personal attack here is out of line, and I caution you against doing it again. In any case, I don't have any idea of what behavior you are referring to. —DoRD (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for making it sound like a personal attack. I suppose I let my emotions get the better of me. I am referring to his comments on the previously linked talk page. Here it is again for your convenience: Talk:Fox_News_Channel

If the attitude and the language he used there are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia I can accept that as an answer and I can adjust my expectations of wikipedia accordingly. I just wanted to run it by an admin to check, rather than to just assume things. I appreciate the time you're taking to clear this up. --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you may not realize is that the person I was in a dispute with is an admin. He's perfectly capable of handling it and navigating the system. I'm sure that if he felt action was needed 3 months ago, he knows where to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, I read about 2/3 of that talkpage ... still not sure what I'm looking for that would lead to "jerk" or "douchebaggery" suggestions. Nothing that violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Maybe a little WP:BATTLE going on, but unless I see a WP:DIFF that shows violations, it's simply someone passionately defending a position when backed into a bit of a corner. Oh, it was also ages ago. ES &L 19:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of saving time, a number of editors participated and the material was included in a way that satisfied both sides..... 3 months ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36, thanks for repeatedly telling me it was 3 months ago. Though that really doesn't answer any of my questions plus I already knew this because conversations have dates on them. DoRD, would you say you agreed with EatsShootsAndLeaves's conclusions? --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Hey, based on this, I'm assuming that Qasaasassa (talk · contribs) is a sock also, but I can't tell from your block who is the banned user.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those accounts, Adaasads (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Qasdssaassds (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are

Confirmed socks of Jude Enemy. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you don't tag them? Any objection to my tagging them?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons I don't bother tagging most LTA socks: WP:DENY and because there are simply so many of them. DENY isn't really in play with this guy, he's just very persistent about getting his imaginary record company into the encyclopedia, so feel free to tag them if you wish. These particular socks usually show up in edit filter 58 and/or 583 if you're interested in tracking them. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]