Jump to content

User talk:Vanjagenije

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a SPI clerk.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pravbv (talk | contribs) at 06:59, 6 December 2015 (→sock puppet investigations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Vanjagenije User:Vanjagenije/Articles User:Vanjagenije/Files User:Vanjagenije/Userboxes User:Vanjagenije/Awards User:Vanjagenije/Tools User talk:Vanjagenije/News User:Vanjagenije/Deletion log 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)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive

Vanja, I don't understand your tagging of the four accounts in my findings. I don't see any consistency, even in each pair.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, Vanja only tagged MahnOfSteel and Rishika.dhanawade, both as confirmed. I had previously tagged Derevation as blocked as Digvijay411 as suspected as per the previous archived report: the latter was tagged "suspected" since they were blocked by JzG on behavioural evidence, and the former as "blocked" because they admitted themself to the socking. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying that. I've retagged the other two as confirmed. It makes no sense for two accounts that are confirmed to each other not to have the same tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, since neither pair was ever explicitly confirmed to the master, I would've opted instead to tag MahnOfSteel as "blocked" (same as Derevation who it was confirmed to), and Rishika.dhanawade as "suspected" (same as Digvijay411 who he was confirmed to). But on the whole... it's a fairly moot bureaucratic point. What matters is: there was socking going on. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This situation comes up frequently, and the problem is we don't have a template that covers the situation. We also don't have complete agreement among the CheckUsers. Take the simplest scenario. A is the master. B and C are accounts that are confirmed to each other and also have some degree of technical relationship with the master but not confirmed. We need a template for B and C that says something like "This account has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts and is a [1] sock puppet of A." [1] would be "suspected" or it would be blank (the same as proven) depending on the case. I wouldn't change any of the existing templates as that's always dicey to avoid affecting the ones currently in use. It would be a new template.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so can you (by that I mean Callanecc mostly) come up with something? If it can be done with the existing template without affecting anything else, that's fine by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Callanecc. I assume it's not live yet? The only thing I notice is you don't have a "Use" column for the new parameters. I like the column as it's a summary description of what it's to be used for. How do I test it so I see the language it actually produces?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't at this stage but when it goes live (it's not yet as you said) I'll add descriptions. The code for the four different instances is written in the table on the testcases page. So you can change the usernames, and add other parameters (from the second table on that page). Currently the change only supports cases where the sock account is confirmed or proven, and where the link to the main master is proven or confirmed. So it's exactly the same as {{Sockpuppet}} except you need to call the {tl|Sockpuppet/sandbox}} version (plus the two new parameters). Does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the use descriptions (it's still not live). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The use descriptions are a bit wordy, no? :-) It seems like there are duplicates; is there a reason for that? There's also one more possibility needed in my view, and that is where A is a confirmed sock of B and it is neither a suspected or proven puppet of the master. For example, I come across two accounts that are clearly socks of each other but are either unrelated or unlikely to the SPI master. That's not necessary if a new SPI is created with a different master, but that doesn't always happen, particularly when there are only two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are, I've sort of explained it two ways (which I'll shorten when it does go live) so it's really clear. Duplicates? You can do that with the current sockpuppet template by specifying a different spi page with the |spipage= parameter. For example {{sock|Example|confirmed|spipage=Scibaby}} (is that what you mean)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prerequistite for CU sleeper checks

I saw your close at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2sc945 of "There is no reason to expect sleepers here." For my information to avoid needless requests in the future, what is usually required to warrant a sleeper check? In the past, I have tagged long-term abusers who have serially opened new registered accounts. I don't recall having a request denied, but maybe it's because they—unknown to me—coincidentally met some other more stringent criteria. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I agree with Vanja's implicit decline of the CU request, although perhaps not for the same reasons. Per the archives, there are no non-stale puppets, confirmed or otherwise, to compare the latest account with. Thus, if I ran a CU, I'd be looking only at the newest alleged puppet. I rarely am inclined to do that. If, OTOH, you found two, even though there would be no previous data point, I would be more sympathetic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: See here for an explanation given by Bbb23 on when the sleepers check is needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, that's one (useful) example. There's not necessarily one answer on every case. Also, not every CheckUser will react the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije, @Bbb23: FWIW, an account created 05:53, 24 October 2015[1] was sniffed out by another CU as a confirmed sock of 2sc945, independent of an SPI, on November 1.[2] Granted, the account was created after I submitted my request, but before it was denied. I get that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and this didn't make the threshold. However, in line with my original thinking (and the benefit of hindsight), I believe that sockmasters that have serially recreated socks—it was already the third identified case when I originally requested the CU—should be afforded more weight as to the possibility of sleepers. Anyways, food for thought. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Congrats on the imminent mop. As an extension of WP:ADMINACCT, some will inevitably start (over-)analyzing your every word with the new bit. You probably meant to say "There is noinsufficient reason to expect sleepers here", and a pointer as to what is normally expected would have been even better. Obviously, I though there was a reason, even if it were to have been a misinformed reason. All the best.—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Thanks. 2sc945 created just five socks in the time span of five years. I still don't think it is serious enough to grant a sleepers check, but that is just my opinion. There is no strict policy on this question, so some other clerk or checkuser may agree with you that the check is appropriate. You may ask Bbb23 and Materialscientist about that. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't looking for a new CU to be done here, and I assume MS did due diligence however he stumbled upon the new ones.—Bagumba (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Thanks! 2601:240:C701:45F0:29D3:1A7D:61A1:8AEF (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{SPI case status}}

For some reason, when an SPI is opened now, and the status is left blank, which is usual, its status at the SPI shows as "unknown". Callanecc made the last change to the template in June, and it appears to state that this is way it should work, but I don't think it did work this way until very recently (I just noticed it). I took one of the SPIs and added open to it, and it now shows as open even though the template appears to state that specifying open should also result in "unknown". As usual in these things, I have no clue what's going on. If you can shed some light on this, that would be greatly appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's me. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Amalthea. I added changed the default "no status" from open to unknown and made "open" an actual triggered status like hold, moreinfo, etc. because it's what Amalthea said she needed for the bot -- your post says it works, but there are many moving pieces to modify along with this one if we do decide to go that way, and most of it is not done right now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Template:SPI case status/core was edited today. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Vanja (for the pointer to the template - can't keep track of all the interlocking templates). Salvidrim!, it looks like in your subsequent conversation at Amalthea's Talk page, Tim believes that if the status is blank, it should default to open. The rest of it I sort of understood, although I'm not sure I understand what needs to be fixed and by whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I understand it better now. The bot sometimes crawls reports that have been archived but for which the categories applied by the case-template haven't been removed yet due to MediaWiki lag -- and when the bot does not find a case template, it reports the status as "unknown" in the case list. The problem thus far is that this "unknown" status caused the cases in question to appear at the top of the case list, and "as if" they has an "open" status, because the caselist templates displayed cases under an "open" status as default when no other existing status matches. All I'd need to do (and that has been done) is to add a display option for cases reported by the bot as "unknown" so that they display as "unknown" and don't default to "open" because they don't match any documented status. As I've proposed, I don't think "unknown" is the best status to report these as and will see with Amalthea if she could tweak how the bot reports these cases in the caselist, so I can then adjust the caselist templates to display these reports how we want them. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, this special status caused by cases still being categorized (thus crawled by the bot) but which have been archived (thus no casetemplate) would only be something that would be reported by the bot to the caselist template and then displayed there in a non-confusing way until MediaWiki lag catches up and these stop being reported. It would not really be an "actual" case status (which would be illogical since the very existence of this would be because there is no longer a casetemplate). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pethmakhama

Hello. I noticed your close, and want to point out that 178.152.28.45 was active on the article on 5 November, and 178.152.19.35 was active on the article today, both of them, based on their edits, obvious Pethmakhama socks and in the same IP-range as the IPs listed in the SPI, although not included in the list there. So closing the SPI because of inactivity is IMHO a bit premature... Thomas.W talk 11:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a very persistent editor who just refuses to listen and won't stop, in spite of multiple attempts to make them understand what the problem is (see for example this attempt to make them understand). Thomas.W talk 11:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portlannd's edits - Serbia

What can we do about it? Report of some sort? Please act (I'm not certain where to write)... He has managed to destroy a previously solid article. Mm.srb (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mm.srb: Yes, I am watching the article, I see what's going on. Probably a wp:topic ban should be proposed at WP:ANI. I see no other solution. I'll write a complaint soon. Keep watching WP:ANI. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mm.srb: Sorry, it is WP:AN, not WP:ANI. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mm.srb: After examining the case carefully, I thought that the best way is to try to talk with Portlannd at his talk page first, so I left him a question. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I shall pay close attention to the newly started conversation. With some luck in hand, it will do the trick. Mm.srb (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Next Polish parliamentary election

Dear Vanjagenije, you marked article Next Polish parliamentary election for speedy deletion marking it as recreation of a deleted page. I have no access to the deleted content so I cannot point the differences between these two articles but the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Polish parliamentary election before the deletion of the previous article says that that article contained prediction of the results and no date for election was gives. These were two main reasons you provided to justify deletion and none of these problems seems to reappear in the new article. Are you sure the new page is the recreation of the old page? Ed88 (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I think Vanjagenije is right for nominating Next Polish parliamentary election for deletion per G4 since its re-creation do not address the reasons for which the original material was deleted. Ed88, have you seen Polish parliamentary election, 2015? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikicology: Yes, I have seen the article about 2015 elections and partially contributed to its current form. Ed88 (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed88: As you can see in WP:Articles for deletion/Next Polish parliamentary election, the main reason for deleting the article was not the election results that were written in it. It was just mentioned as a peculiarity, but the reason the article was deleted is that there were no reliable sources that discussed the election. That fact has not changed. This new article still does not cite any reliable source that discuss this particular election (see: WP:CRYSTAL). So, the reason given for the deletion of the original page are still valid. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: I cannot discuss the previous article and reasons for its deletion because I cannot read that version. I know which reasons where given in the discussion. Please let me know if there are any reliable sources discussing the following elections: Next Greek legislative election, Next Austrian legislative election, Next Belgian federal election, Next Czech legislative election, Next Dutch general election, Next Greek legislative election, Next Montenegrin parliamentary election, Next German federal election, Turkish general election, 2019. Why you are not arguing for deleting all of them? Maybe I should cite sources like this article about nominating PM after 2019 elections to make my article more reliable? Ed88 (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

Hi Vanjagenije, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations on the positive result and for your new place on WP:RFX100. As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 18:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen an RfA referred to as "a pleasant experience" by anyone in recent memory. Most of the time, it's pretty grueling. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
While I don't personally know you very well (since I don't frequent SPI), I can still say that your efforts there are simply prolific and that denying you the mop is like throwing out the janitor with the blackwater. I wanted to congratulate you on your amazingly successful RFA (with the most astonishing support:oppose ratio Wikipedia has seen in a while!) with this special, shiny barnstar. Good luck with the mop! I'm so happy to see another brave administrator take to the mean streets of Wikipedia! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 22:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@K6ka: Thank you very much. I'll give my best! Vanjagenije (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you!

Congratulations! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubbish computer: Thanks. I never tried falafel, I hope I'll like it . Vanjagenije (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

I made you a cheeseburger to congratulate you on your successful RFA. Make us proud as an admin EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EurovisionNim: Uh, one of my favorite dishes! Vanjagenije (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob W. Stanley

I would have linked it to the archive myself, but am unsure of the correct mechanism. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: When you tell me to look something, please also explain me why should I look and what exactly to look for. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. What is obvious to me is not obvious to you. Unless my eyes deceive me the primary case page is not linked to the archive page. Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: The page just needs to be WP:purged (You can make a WP:null edit to purge the page). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for troubling you. I should have realised that. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Congratulations for successfully going through RfA! You definitely deserve this for the SPI work and I imagine that it won't be long until you get the admin barnstar as well! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: thanks a lot! Vanjagenije (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI question

I'm rusty on SPI. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2015‎‎ has been vandalized repeatedly over the last few weeks, by a different new IP or new user account every time. These pages rarely get edited by anyone, but when they do, it screws up the "archive" link on each day's TFA (the first item on the Main Page). It generally happens while I'm asleep, and the vandalism sits there for a while. Would it be worthwhile opening an SPI on this person? They generally go on to vandalize other WP pages. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I get that I could fix the problem by semi-protecting the page (unless they learn to be patient) ... but since this page is the chosen stomping ground of this prolific vandal, leaving the page unprotected might help with catching each of their incarnations, and generating some data on the IP(s). - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the semi-protection. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I semi-protected the page. But, what evidence do we have that those four edits were made by the same person? During this month, that page is linked directly from the main page that is visited by thousands of people each hour. And four of them vandalized the page in the timespan of one week. I see no evidence that those are sockpuppets. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're the expert here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blank/delete

The user documentation on blank/delete process is not very clear so sorry for using these tools incorrectly. I don't want to WP:VANISH, I just posted my personal information a while ago on the user page and possibly on user talk page. I have deleted it since, but it obviously stays in the edits history and that's what I'm trying to purge. Whatever works, would be fine for me. Kravietz (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kravietz: If you tell me exact edits of yours (using WP:diffs) that are problematic, I might be able to delete only them. Deleting the whole talk page is not allowed (and not needed) because it also contains edits by other users. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you — that's exactly what I'm after. From user page: [3][4][5] I have reviewed all edits from the user talk page but they seem to be ok (i.e. don't need to delete any of them). Kravietz (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Anyway, deletion of the user page is allowed, so you could request the speedy deletion. Only user talk page might not be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Kravietz (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving Kang Jin-a

Thanks for saving the page from deletion.Jjaey (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Edit

I can't tell for sure but the most recent revision of Jonathan M. Katz seemed a bit suspicious to me. However, I am not confident in saying that it's vandalism, so I would like to hand this off to you since you're an administrator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CLCStudent (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent: Yes, it was pure vandalism. I reverted it. Thanks for reporting. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

You deleted my page as I was editing it, with that you caused me to loose all my resources and bibliography. I have classes and was unable to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfort8 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Danfort8: Your article was nominated for deletion two hours before I deleted it. You had a plenty of time to edit it, which you didn't do. As I already told you on your talk page, you are free to write the article again in the WP:Draft namespace. If you use draft, you can work on the article as long as you want and it would not be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed re your nomination for deletion

Hi,

In 2014 you  nominated 3 pages which I started for deletion. These redirects which were deleted as a result of your nomination, were used to link to terminology that is used extensively in the United States healthcare reform articles.

Can you please advise me how to have these deletions oveturned. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Two redirects created by you were deleted last December after a deletion discussion (see: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_4#Gold_plan). I seams to me that those editors who participated in the discussion were aware of the usage of those terms in the healthcare act. But, they still took opinion that such redirects are not needed. The only way to get them back is to request a Wikipedia:Deletion review. But, if you do that, you would be expected to provide some new evidence that was not known at the time of the discussion, or to show how the discussion was closed contrary to the established policies. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

belated congratulations

I'm late, but congratulations on your successful RFA!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – eight long, sordid, should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.)
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
  5. Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


Katietalk 04:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.
@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks a lot. I just now realized that our two user accounts were registered only few days apart. Interesting. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know - AfD culture

Just to let you know your edits may/have been discussed at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Airport Station

Thanks for your move of the Newark Liberty International Airport Station article. Unfortunately the talk:page does not correspond. It would require Talk:Newark Liberty International Airport station being moved to to the correct namespace. I hope you can do that. Much appreciated. Djflem (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sock

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner Don't know why I didn't spot him in the Japan diacritics RM, must be getting slow. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the examples you gave Talk:Marin Čilić and Talk:Agnieszka Radwańska (thanks by the way) ‎now have RM proposals... In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request by Againstdisinformation

I can't tell his response to your offer [6] was encouraging. Againstdisinformation tells: "As concerns wp:dramaboards [linked by you to WP:ANI], I don't see what you are alluding to. Unless you are referring to the case brought against me on ANI by user Reaganomics, which he lost, and that almost boomeranged." He "forget" about ANI discussion he recently started [7]. This discussion was also mentioned on the top of his talk page by another contributor. Denying obvious in response to unblock offer is a bad sign. Can anyone trust that guy? My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Yes, that is case I had in my mind. But, remember, WP:Unblocks are cheap. If he continues with any kind of disruption, we can always block him again. That is much easier and consumes less time than to argue more about this. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No question, he would be a wonderful contributor if he remains active and can follow all your unblocking conditions. I just do not think he will [8] based on their comments so far. Let's wait and see. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to have a look at your talk page. Since we have interacted recently, I wanted to know you a little more. I see that even here MVBW has posted against me even though he should have refrained, being heavily involved in the case. I would like to provide evidence that his accusations are unfounded, but I will not do it without your approval. So, please ping me to let me know. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije, I need your help. ScrapIronIV left the following abusive comment on Talk:Human rights in the United States: "I know you and your new buddy have become very close since your mutual backscratching sessions on his talk page, but you can take your POV pushing elsewhere." Scr★pIronIV 18:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC). He is referring to SageRad and me. Since my unblock conditions do not allow me to answer to abuse, I let you be the judge whether this is acceptable language or not. If you don't want me to bother you with such matters again, just let me know. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect me to do exactly? I don't understand. Why don't you just ignore him? That would be the best thing to do even without my conditions. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije. Since I am not allowed to do it myself, I would appreciate you to tell him that such language is unacceptable. His comment was directed at RadSage, not at me directly. Also, in my opinion , you should have told My very best wishes that, due to his heavy involvement, it was improper for him to open a section on your talk page, while you were reviewing my case, in order to advocate keeping my block. It is akin to a party to a trial having dinner with the judge to convince him of the guilt of the opposing side. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Γνῶθι σεαυτόν. I thinks some your recent edits violate your unblocking conditions. For example,

  1. that your comment addressed to Toddy1: "... Do you therefore think that BMK and Drmies, who apparently shared my lunacy, should have also been indefinitely blocked?... Why did your friends My very best wishes, who constantly claims to be extremely busy, and Iryna Harpy, with whom you co-edited against me on such an uncontroversial matter as the spelling of Edme-Antoine Durand, spend so much time and effort to keep me blocked?" and
  2. that your comment addressed to Masebrock: "this article is monitored by a small group of editors who will oppose the slightest change to its wording. ... It's a shame".

I think this is all bad faith assumptions, to say the least. However, this is obviously on discretion of the unblocking administrator. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please could review an accusation that he/she is in violation of the unblock conditions that you placed on him/her

You were the person who unblocked Againstdisinformation. This was a kind deed. An editor has accused former-Againstdisinformation of violating his/her unblock conditions at User talk:Toddy1#Victoria Nuland and my block.

  • If former-Againstdisinformation has violated his/her unblock conditions, please reblock. (If a block is merited - and I cannot judge this - indefinite seems harsh - please be merciful and time-limit it to 29th October.)
  • If former-Againstdisinformation has not violated his/her unblock conditions, then a clear statement from you would clear the air.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Wlglunight93 and AndresHerutJaim

As far as I can see Elockid is only talking about moving the case of Delores Moghadam to AndresHerutJaim. I don't think he said that Andres and Wlglunight93 are the same. It seems highly implausible to me, but I could be wrong. I did report two of Wlglunight93's socks, and they definitely seemed different from Andres to me. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the entire case. Previously  Confirmed as Wlglunight were ISavedPvtRyan and Averysoda. However based on CU data, the real sockmaster for these accounts is AHJ. For me anyways, the behavior between Averysoda is pretty much in line with AHJ. Elockid Message me 12:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Elockid: Thanks, that clears up matters a lot. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: Then, everything is OK? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, you're an administrator?

When I last looked at SPI, you were just a SPI clerk. I must have blinked and missed it. Congratulations! (I'm sorry if this is late...) Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeke Essiestudy: Thank you very much. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient grains

Hi, Ancient grains is finally on main page. I just wanted to thank you because without your afd it would have gone unnoticed. I am more happy because its my first DYK with image. You withdrawn your afd after my request, so thanks for that. --Human3015TALK  09:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I would appreciate it if you could comment here. Counsel2 (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A congratulation and a question

Back in spring when you were handling the Tirgil34 investigations i really wondered why a great Wikipedian like you hadn't been made an administrator yet. Coming back from a wikibreak i see that you've finally become an administrator. Congratulations! In case you didn't notice my ping, i strongly suspect that Tirgil34 is the sockmaster behind Egaplaicesp. On a side note, was the behavioural evidence in the 24 May case ever evaluated by an administrator before it was closed due to the closure of the later 26 June investigation? Krakkos (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I noticed that case, but I don't see it as urgent, so I'l review it when I find some time. As about the May case, you should ask the one who closed the investigation, but I suppose behavior was analysed. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazandibi

Congratulations
For passing your RfA!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ran for RFA while I was on a WikiBreak. Please consider this a very belated Support from a fellow SPI clerk. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: Thanks. You know, I couldn't wait for you to come back for the RfA. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unblock User Account!

Dr. Huasheng, this user account is innocent! No matter who this user is, we expect to unblock this user account! Please provide any help! Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.149.90 (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, this is probably the same vandal as we had last month. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valsartan/sacubitril

Hello Vanjagenije,

I just wanted to apologize for breaking the sockpuppet rule by editing the Valsartan/sacubitril article under multiple IP addresses. This was not done with intent to deceive (In several places I claim credit for edits made under the other IP addresses), but simply out of ignorance of the rules. At no point did I attempt to pretend that these different IP accounts were different editors in order to manipulate the appearance of concensus or to violate WP:3RR

I tried to do the right thing here, seeking outside input at the Medicine Project page, and actively seeking discussion on the Talk page. I won't bore you with the details of the conflict or my criticisms of the behavior of those on the other side of the discussion. But I'd like to say that I am very concerned that our medical articles reflect expert consensus, as like it or not, people do make medical decisions based on what they read here. I tried to do that by adding a quote from the conclusions of the study cited in the "Controversies" section, as I felt the criticisms in the cited article were taken out of context to present a negative view that the authors did not intend.

I broke the rules, even if inadvertently, and will not ask for unprotecting the article or any special considerations here. I would ask that you keep an eye on the article, and try to make sure the content matches what is said in the sources. I think our readers deserve that irrespective of the mistakes I made here. If you could look in on this I'd be very much in your debt.

Respectfully, 2601:643:8100:8AF4:CB9:A6AB:C5C7:8F1E (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC) (as well as the other two IP addresses :>) )[reply]

sock puppet investigations

I am not a sock puppet, user Kailash has the habit of tagging every other editor he encounters as a sock puppet of padmalakshmisx. On the other hand, sock puppet allegations have to be made on some one who is into damaging wikipedia articles, but I am actually contributing to wikipedia constructively. Kindly check my edit history, and see what exactly I did. Pravbv (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije&oldid=693976787"