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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rainman64

Given recent actions by NanaRobins what is the procedure for having this looked at again ? Mtking (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Last time a checkuser was run, and it showed that the accounts are probably not the same person. They may be working in collusion as meatpuppets, however. Do you have any new diffs to support a connection? If so, you can relist, and if the evidence is strong enough, we could come up with other options. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify that a little more, now that I've had a checkuser take another look at it. First, there's no overlap in these accounts. It basically seems like Rainman64 was abandoned and was replaced by NanaRobins. So there's no abuse of accounts here per se. As long as they're sticking to one account, there honestly isn't much of a reason to block. It's sucky, I know, but I don't personally feel comfortable with a block just yet. Maybe once both accounts are being used at the same time, then we can take a look. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but can I ask you keep an eye on them, as even though there edits do not overlap they have denied a link which is clear as day. Mtking (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theevangalist1

Just wanted to let you know that around the same time you handed out the blocks, I posted an update with an additional suspected account. Singularity42 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked editor is back

Hi HelloAnnyong, you recently blocked this editor, for a week, but it appears they are now back as this IP address and making the exact same edit despite your block. Regardless of the block though, this article is currently subject to 1RR which I informed the blocked editor about. I also placed the 1RR notice on the article talk page discussion and despite this, the current IP account ignored it, and reverted the article twice, here and here before they commented directly under the notice I placed in the discussion. Can this be sorted out, or should I post this on the Arb enforcement page? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You can post on AE if you'd like. In the meantime, I've blocked 212.183.128.41 for evasion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Its getting tedious I know.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I filed a request, which I think is correctly formatted? I think this is going to be an ongoing problem which needs a long term solution.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that looks right. Arbcom enforcement really isn't my specialty, but I guess we'll see what comes up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The out come is outlined here. What effect it has remains to be seen. Socking can and will be reverted without penalty. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 17:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it did not take long. As to the calibre of this IP, this post would be representative. I left a post on AGK's talk page. No point in letting it drag on.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. I've taken some steps to stop this editor for now, so we'll see. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm waying in, Fot the record Domer has made 5 edits in 3 days to this page - [1]. Also you have reverted the page back to disputed content. If you have time to look at the discussion there are 3 for the change and 3 against the change. So why has this change been made? Who knows, but I would say that this is what the page looked like prior to edit war - [2]. Bjmullan suggested the change was as a result of consensus on talk page. AttackZack (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, what? I didn't revert any content on that page - I only protected the article. And the current version, just like the link you gave before the edit war, does not contain the word 'international'. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. But the 2nd diff does show that international was in the body of the text prior to the change made by Bjmullan. If you look here [3] you will see that 'international' has been in the text for 6 months until recently. Probably longer but I just did a diff between the 1s and last edit on the screen. Bjmullan stopped edit warring due to a warning from Domer48 - [4]. But then Domer took up the mantle and made a number of edits. Surely he deserves a block aswell. AttackZack (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Domer has got away with it. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackZack (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the notice both on the discussion and the top of the article, Per Troubles Arbcom, and 1RR, "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". Contrabutions by Indef blocked editors and their socks should be ignored.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

ohh sorry, so edits by IPs can be reverted without explanation? ok. But can their opionions be ignored in discussions aswell? ok then why did you revert this [6]. The onus is on you to justify the change not the other way around. This is a breach of 1RR. Either way there is still no consensus in the talk page.

HelloAnnoying, can you revert the page back to its original content as here, as per O Fenian's last revision [7] AttackZack (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this. I'm not passing any judgment on the edits in question; my block/protection was based solely on there being persistent sockpuppetry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for that Hello, I'll post on the Notice Board if it keeps up. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, this editor is a sock!!! I'm shocked! Your powers of deduction boarder on the paranormal.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to MFIreland to discussion other than block appeal

I've responded to this request to MFIreland at User talk:Alex79818#Indef blocked account. Any such request to a user blocked for sock puppetry seems entirely inappropriate for the reason I outlined. Could you please take a look. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have information that Alex79818 has socked prolifically as well, using both IP and named accounts. Not sure how to proceed as currently Check User would not be valid as he has used IP sock. I would also need to reveal information I have on real life identity to prove a sock puppet case. Any advice? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. if Alex79818 has used other named accounts then we can run a checkuser on them. If it's just IPs, though, that's a bit more iffy. If you think you can start a case for the named accounts, then go ahead. You can also email me your evidence. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, HelloAnnyong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Done, thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, HelloAnnyong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Update. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad Faith?

So SummerPhD's bad faith accusation to get his way in a deletion discussion is fine? Seriously? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

His accusation wasn't in bad faith - he had actual evidence, and it turned out to be true anyway. Compare that to your accusing two editors with more than 40,000 edits each of being sockpuppets. If I were you I would just drop the issue and move on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jake Picasso

Blah indeed! I have been going through the latest batch of socks and tagged the obvious hoaxes, but will come back to one or two of the articles later; there are also a few articles that are going to have to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to root out some of the errors he snuck in, either with those accounts or with IP edits that are obviously him. But even by doing a bit of lateral thinking and searching for a bit of a "give" he has in his edits, I came across another one from March. I'm not quite sure if that is past what would be a safe time limit to avoid collateral damage - the laws of chance would suggest there comes a time with dynamically assigned IP addresses when there is a good chance they are going to be assigned to bona-fide contributors. I don't mind brining the account to SPI, although I might see if Ican dig a few others from around the time. Any thoughts? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Paultioetc

[8] Persistent little devil, another IP sock. Can I ask if user talk pages can be semi-protected. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They can be, but it's not really done unless it's particularly crazy vandalism or something; see WP:UPROT. Unless your talk page really picks up pace, it's probably not justified. Sorry. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

False sockpuppetry accusation

I have complained about you to the administrator's Notice Board,[9] since you have been banning my different IP's with no actual reason whatsoever. Two different people can react in a similar way faced with the deletion of cited content, and that does not make them the same person. In fact, our "behavioral evidence" if inspected closely shows that we have a different point of view in regard to a particular citation: [10] ı believed the citation of Gehri needs to stay as it is

From the talk page registered user tells this: [11] and not agreeing with him I made a different argument: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.80.214 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOOMERANG. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My Recent SPI

See all those usernames in that users contribs. All the usernames start with Tro. All! The user you also recently blocked is already trying to contest it. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 17:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Massive sockpuppet.JPG

I think that's a false positive. If you take a look at Wekn reven i susej eht's most recent edits, you'll see they moved onto usernames that start with D. My guess is they're running a bot and just picked and arbitrary starting place. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well all those usernames seemed very suspicious at first. As I said, that user is already contesting their block. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 17:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've commented on Wekn's talk page, the behaviour seems odd but my impression is that a second chance might be in order. I can't comment on the possibility of running a bot, which seems a bit technical to me but it's not something I've tried. So, a block to stop the excess was certainly appropriate, but it seems worth reviewing. . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Annyong, thank you for expressing your concern regarding my sockpuppetry/disruptive editing case. You did what you thought was best, and I respect that decision (like how are you supposed to warn anyone who is welcoming people at 50 an hour?) and want to commend you for your actions against potential vandalism. If you ever need a spelling check on an article or help with slavic language translation, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

Hi there ANNYONG, VASCO here,

judging from your last addition here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_2), i got the feeling you did not find my reply satisfying. Well, i was only saying i could not find any significant diffs, it was more of a gut feeling.

If you blocked him, turns out you did find it was him. Sorry for any incovenience, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There has to have been _something_ that gave you a gut feeling. Same category of articles, same style, something - that just needs to be listed in the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes mate, i mentioned that previously, meaning: i had no diffs per se, but the (appalling) style of writing, the removing of dots in the football clubs (i told/warned him about that, he continued, in all 60+ accounts!), the exclusivity of Portuguese football in edits, made me "raise an eyebrow". I mentioned that in my report.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, i think i continued to make a mess of myself in the following answer to you :( So you mean i should have provided diffs for all those things i mentioned? Well, i guess i could add all his edits with this account, but i guess that would have may have been not enough proof to convict Pararubbas in the wiki-court, on the account that it could be only a coincidence...

By the way, if you don't mind me asking: 1 - why was the checkuser (always 100% reliable) not possible in this case; 2 - how did you find out it was him? Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I would've just liked to have some actual diffs, rather than having to go and search for them myself. The burden is on the person logging the report; just having a hunch really isn't sufficient. We could have run a checkuser to see if it was the same as that other account that was blocked, but all the data we have on the master and their confirmed socks is stale. In other words, the last confirmed case we have is from September 2010, so all the data we have on those accounts has gone stale in the nine months. Port9307890 was blocked as a suspected sock, so we could have run a check against that I guess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawnwelling

Thank you for processing the case. My apologies but I forgot to link one of the socks in the original report headers, but there was a follow-up confirmation by Dominic: [13]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Testing a block?

Hi again HelloAnnyong, could this possibly be a test edit to check the effectiveness of a block?--Domer48_'fenian' 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmbmmmbm

Hi, this user apparently created many accounts in different projects, is it necessary to report all of them on here too? for example user from Arabic or Chinese Wikipedia.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's irrelevant - we only handle checkuser requests on the English Wikipedia. If there's abuse actively going on, you'd have to open requests on each of the other Wikis - or perhaps take it to Steward requests/Checkuser on Meta. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK thank you, I think for now blocking them only at local projects would be enough.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  17:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case (Darwinek)

And where do I respond to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darwinek case? Bellow the "evidence"? Ratipok (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For deleting that. And for starting the SPI in the first place, that was done very efficiently. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quesiton

Is this worth including in the evidence section of the SPI I filed today? I was looking through some edits to see if I could find any other overlaps and I found two more examples of similar editing. [14] [15] [16] As you can see, Jake has an interest in the Doctor Who universe, as does Chartered Wombat.[17] In addition, Jake expressed interest in DC Comics here [18] and Chartered Wombat edited DC Comics here [19]. With the evidence I've already added to the SPI, do you think this additional information is worth adding? I'd rather not add anything to the SPI if it's unhelpful or redundant. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. the first three links don't actually show any sort of connection; they're just links to history pages, which I can find on my own. The others are marginally more useful, though. The case was endorsed for a checkuser anyway, so we've sort of moved past the point of evidence. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The admin assigned to it has agreed and blocked the accounts. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 10:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Archived SPI

Hi, I noticed on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pinkmermaid/Archive that only two of the socks were blocked. Don't you usually block the Sock Master too? I have an ip address that belongs to the sockmaster user:Pinkmermaid that's also being used as a sock puppet. Can anything be done? All of these accounts are disruptive. Here's the other ip that was missed Special:Contributions/75.83.150.58 thanks!

--76.74.158.234 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And now I see user:Pinkmermaid just now removed an admins edits once again, re inserting unsourced, unverifiable info. This is why the sock master should be blocked, in my opinion.

--76.74.158.234 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but don't try to call in a block because you don't like the edits that account has been making. Being a sockmaster and making unsourced edits are, in this case, mutually exclusive things. And I didn't block PM because it was a first time offense, and they seem to have learned their lesson. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You often write "blocking, but endorsing for sleepers" with regards to checkuser requests. What does that mean? Just curious, thanks.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It means just that: I've blocked the suspected sock puppets (usually based on behavioral evidence), but I'm endorsing the request for a checkuser to be run. Running a checkuser usually isn't done unless there's reason to do so, and endorsing for a check is basically confirming that there's a reason. In this case, it's to find sleepers - accounts that were created by the sockmaster but haven't been used yet. It can also refer to other accounts that are connected with the sockmaster but are not immediately apparent. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know what a sleeper account was. Now I know! Thanks for answering. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Favour?

Sorry to bother you, but could you please delete User:Truthkeeper88/Vincent van Gogh sandbox when you have time. I don't need it & mistakenly created it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Btw - I still have your page watched from all our fun two summers ago. From what I see in edit summaries you're keeping busy, but impressive work you seem to be doing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your block of 76.109.44.50 (talk · contribs). I would appreciate your perspective, on this, issue. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock investigation notice

You were previously involved in blocking one of the related socks; please see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Now that User:The Last Angry Man has made more edits, I wonder if you could look at the account again determine if it is a sock account of User:mark nutley, User:Tentontunic. To summarize, the similarities were TLAM appears to show experience, the IPs used by TLAM before the account was set up are from the South of England, there is an emphasis on Communist and English far right topics, TLAM edit wars mostly over POV tags, the language is similar, other editors suspect they are the same account, TLAM has created a number of stubs on controversial topics. TFD (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be possible to do. Open an SPI case for it and we'll take a look. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Was I not already investigated and cleared of this? How many times shall I be accused of being a sock puppet? I would also like to know if The Four Deuces will name these other editors who think I am another person? And which controversial article stubs I have created? This is just harassment. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

User:Haeretica Pravitas back as User: 83.199.113.29 on Sheldon Lee Glashow with this edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I took care of this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw the semi. I'll let you know if HP comes back to Lee Smolin and Sidney Coleman, the other two articles they've hit before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Couple more ducks

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andreas2009. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks... I realized a few miutes ago I had forgotten to actually ask for checkuser, after saying it in the report and was frantically looking for the code to change it. Found it, but you got there first. Cheers. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I noticed that you declined the CU in this case [20]. But I have had similar cases where a CU was performed. I think in this one it will be conclusive, because the edits are within a minute of each other. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

They connected an IP to an account? That's rare; it's usually only done in extenuating circumstances. This case isn't nearly prolific enough to warrant that, but I think the evidence is strong enough that it's not a problem. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, no idea what happened there [21], browser acting weird. Athenean (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI of Brazilian IPs / ANI report

I'm not the only one who sees this as a big farce, am I? XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja

Just out of curiosity, what exactly does it mean if the data for a user (sock puppeteer) is stale? Thanks in advance, TMCk (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It means that the checkuser data we have for the user is out of date, so we can't use it to compare multiple accounts. In this case, Zlykinskyja hasn't edited for so long that if we do have any data for them (which is doubtful) it's really old, so we can't reliably use it to see if another account is the same. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. That means that checkuser only is using previous used IP's and not provider and/or geographical references to determine a possible match. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It's my first filing of a checkuser request so I'm still learning. Thanks again for explaining.TMCk (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser looks at IPs, yes. We can determine a person's geographical location by using their IP, but we don't have some other way of getting that data. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So I assume that RockSound is editing from a different geographical area and therefore there is no match per checkuser to be made. Thanks for your patience and enjoy your vacation, Best TMCk (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the conclusion you drew from what I said, then you misunderstood. Read this carefully: due to the fact that Zlykinskyja has not edited in a long time, we do not have the data available to check whether or not they are editing from a new account. That says nothing about behavioral evidence, which we can - and in this case, have to - use to make a judgment. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean that there are no IP's she edited from logged anymore? Or did I missunderstand again (which would make me a lost case :) ). BTW, I have a small log of IP's she used. Probably not helpfull. I'll better let you enjoy your free time now. I'll get it sooner or later ;) . Cheers, TMCk (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the way you'll get it, then yes, we don't have a log of the IPs they edited from anymore. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this way I get it. I thought there is more to it :) Thanks. Will add some IP's that she used while logged out then to the investigation. Now I really really will leave you alone and thanks again for your helpfull input. Best, TMCk (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Could I get you to look at a cudeclined SPI?

Hi HelloAnnyong, could I please get you to have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28? It was CU-declined because of stale data, but there is a strong reason to believe, imo, that Foxhound66 (talk · contribs) is Jeneral28, who is currently indefinitely blocked. Foxhound66 is himself currently blocked for a week, but this block expires tomorrow. As someone who's been on the receiving end of attacks by Foxhound66, could I please ask that as an admin/SPI clerk you review the case and evidence and make a determination on whether the current block is worth extending to an indef? I would hate to think this person who obviously refuses to accept Wikipedia policy and repeatedly attacks other editors can get away with socking. Thanks for considering and best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş

Hi. Is anything going to happen about the unblock request at User talk:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş? The last request was closed with the comment "The blocking admin is actively working your appeal on SPI", but that was on June 7 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently on vacation and have spotty Internet, and I forgot about that case. Based on how the case ended, I'd say Seksen should stay blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that he very likely isn't an actual sock, and so a lengthy sock block seems unfair - he really does appear to be in Cyprus and the other guy in Istanbul. And I think the SPI missed the point - the CU request wasn't to support the judgment of guilt, it was to check the claim of innocence, and it wasn't done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Gantuya eng

I have unblocked this user whom you blocked in february after a somewhat strange sockpuppet case. The account has made a well formed unblockrequest - maintaining its innocence of socking, but also promising not to use sockpuppets in the future. Having reviewed the evidence at the SPI I also don't think it confirms guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - the behavioral evidence could be explained by editors with similar cultural background and the CU requested more investigation before action was taken. I think the case is in the gray area. In any case I hope you won't take offense at my giving this user another chance to become a valuable contributor. Best. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine; I trust you on this. And I'll let you know if a new case gets opened up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Jackjit

Is there any point in filing new sockpuppet cases as I find more socks, or do I just keep blocking them? I assumed from Tnxman307's comments in the previous case that there was some point to reporting them; perhaps because the IP address used to create the socks is worth blocking. However, the 118 range is dynamic; it belongs to one of New Zealand's largest ISPs and gives a new IP address every time the connection is reset. I'm on this range myself.-gadfium 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and report them. We were able to do an IP block in the past, so maybe it could be done again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

note

It seems you will likely not need to reply but if you want to here is the link Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#admin decision taken by HelloAnnyong - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of Sven the Big Viking

Hello HelloAnnyong. Sven the Big Viking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. The user's explanation looks reasonable to me, and if so it's all an unfortunate misunderstanding. However, I thought it better to consult you just in case you know something relevant that I don't. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea was that Toug was blocked under the suspicion of being a sock of MidnightBlueMan (talk · contribs). Their first edit was to call out HighKing in the edit summary, and to make an edit that's incendiary to the British Isles dispute. An edit like that isn't that of a new editor, I don't think. And now the user is repeatedly saying that they're new and don't know the rules? I don't know... it all seems rather fishy to me.

Now having said that, I've been wrong in the past, so I'll leave it to your judgment. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 08:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That information was enough to point me to the right things to look out for, and I decided that on balance you're probably right, so I have declined the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You got mailed

Hello, HelloAnnyong. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out. And has been doing so under many constantly changing I.P. numbers while logged out. (For example today under I.P. numbers 46.241.172.86 / 188.115.233.180 ). This user has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars.

(Maphobbyist talk) 20:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Event.Horizon.000 while being logged out, is erasing the editions I made in the Historic preservation and Adaptive reuse for no apparent reason, indeed in any article I edited. Could you protect these two articles for the time being? (Maphobbyist talk) 23:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for endorsing this SPI case for CU attention. Much appreciated. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/56tyvfg88yju. Can that whole page be merged into this one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was  Done by Amalthea (talk · contribs). Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne

Noticed you closed this one, do you not think it's worth a CU to check for sleeper accounts, given the last accounts were created less than 2 weeks ago? You're more experienced than I am, but I was wondering what you thought on this. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good call; there were a lot of accounts last time. I've endorsed the case now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, glad to know I'm not a total idiot in my thoughts :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, did I miss something?

Did we clear all of the SPI cases? TNXMan 02:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, there was some thing with switching the categories over or something. I missed most of what happened... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Move

Just to tell you that this situation should be moved to this section, as you accidentally place it in the warnings log, instead of Log of blocks and bans. :) All best! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Relisting SPI

Hi, sorry if this is a stupid question, but on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USchick/Archive you suggested that if the user continued, to relist the case. How do I relist this SPI? USchick is continuing the editing behavior and she never commented on the first SPI, so I thought it would be a good idea to open it up again. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They're continuing to abuse multiple accounts? If they are - and this isn't just about an edit war - then go to WP:SPI, put in the user's name in the box where it says, and follow the instructions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant relist when edit warring was happening again. I'll wait to relist the SPI until there's more sockpuppet abuse. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb The Movie: Across 2nd Dimension!

Hi Annyong, I need your help! Can you put an semi-protected to the page Phineas and Ferb the Movie? This page is the place that has been vandalized by many unregistered contributors, I and some bots and users have reverted many vandals, they change time premiere, cast, add bad faith info.. Please semi-protecting it!

Candace Flynn (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's done. In the future, take it to WP:RFPP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

New sockpuppet

Hello Annyoung. Can you please take a look at this user Event.Horizon.000 who was blocked before temporarily and is now back vandalizing the pages Daşkəsən, Ordubad Rayon, Cultural genocide again? He has sockpuppetted before as Mr.John.66, however Event.Horizon.000 himself seems to be a sockpuppet account of blocked user ASALA7.08.1982. Please see his comment he left at one editor's talk page right here. The IP 188.115.236.124 traces to IPs 188.115.222.120 and 188.115.220.238 used by ASALA7.08.1982 (see here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ASALA7.08.1982/Archive). It is the same user evading blocks and vandalizing pages. All his blind POV reverts should be undone... Neftchi (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Event.Horizon.000 has been blocked for a month for edit warring by another admin. TNXMan 13:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Hey - remember Jamiawala, who created several socks? Well, if you remember his accounts were all blocked and the Preity Zinta article was protected for a week because of his vandalism. Now he's back and is repeatedly adding some nonsense on the talk page, posting some unjustified slanders against me. I've reverted him thrice but it seems like he doesn't learn. Could the talk page be protected for a certain period? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not really frequent enough to justify protection. If it does pick up in frequency, take it to RFP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If it does pick up in frequency, can I turn to you? (I think it's better since you are more familiar with the problem) Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out there - hopefully he gets the message and doesn't come back. Toa Nidhiki05 00:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:NotURmonkey

Hey HelloAnnyong. I came upon the unblock notice for the user above, blocked by you for block evasion. There's no indication of any sockpuppet investigation nor the name of the prior account anywhere I can find. It's difficult to make any determination in an unblock case when a reviewer cannot track down the substance of the block from the block summary, a block template, or any other notice. Can you provide some details? Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sent you an email regarding this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance Requested

Hello. Last year you investigated me because someone complained I wasn't who I said I was. Your conclusions are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Thunderer/Archive

Now I've been accused of exactly the same thing again by (I think)the same poster here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Special_Constabulary#Removal_of_Image

Is there any way of stopping this kind of harrassment?

SonofSetanta (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

...what am I looking for on that talk page? I see no recent conversation about this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You will see the poster "Domer" has accused me of being a sockpuppet. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. (Sorry, it's a little early for me.) Um.. that comment is kinda annoying, but not worth doing much about yet. If it continues, you can report it to some of the higher groups. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked you because you investigated me last year when he and others said the same. You concluded, rightly, that I am not. Why is he still making this accusation when it's been proven otherwise?SonofSetanta (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)