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

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 [1]. 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 [2], 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It means that the checkuser data we have for the user is out of date, so we can't use it to compare multiple accounts.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)

I didn't say you weren't the same editor - I just said that there wasn't justification for blocks or other action. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case why is this other person making this attack on me? Do you not find it odd?SonofSetanta (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

Have you looked into User:SilentBlues? His actions reek of being a sock puppet for one of the repeat offenders of sock puppetry trying to establish a new identity. Mathewignash (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New sock

Rovosoman ip sock 81.17.183.89 or was it 85? from ipad in car Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Handled. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There's now a CU request from a Hungarian editor. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, where? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovosaman. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noob saibot red

I spent a bunch of time reviewing this case and came to the conclusion that there are too many differences to continue forward with this check. Apparently within that time you also were looking at it and came to the opposite conclusion. Can you hop on IRC or something so we can talk about it? For the time being I put the case on hold. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wash your Belarus socks

Hey HelloAnnyong, I think you should pop over to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lithuanian_edit-warring, where I left you a note. You should polish up your mop on your way over, methinks. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock ?

Hi HelloAnnyong. Are A and B same person ? Takabeg (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey M Dean

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jeff Dean returning to edit: editing restrictions to let him re-enter, so you may want to reopen. He just notified me of the pre-discussion on my talk page. ww2censor (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've taken actions accordingly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not see that either before I started the sock investigation. There should really be a notice on the sockmaster's page but there is nothing to indicate there is any consideration being given to the editor. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248

I notice that a new self-proclaimed IP sock appeared on the page after I filed the case. It's also a static IP and also WP:QUACKs in its previous contributions. Do you think it might be possible to block that IP as well and perhaps revisit the socks from the 15 December investigation that were not blocked? This sock is intent on further disruption. I'm sure he'll use other IPs but that's a start I guess. I posted about this on the case page but had to revert, as I saw it was marked as "closed." ScottyBerg (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP for awhile, but no, there isn't any reason to dig up those previous socks. All the IPs and accounts are stale, so there's no point in blocking them. If they become active again then we can investigate, however. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do see your point. One loose end: User:SinforosoAlicea is an obvious sock. Its only contribution was to support the IP sock that you just blocked.[3] ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, that account hasn't edited in a year. Let me know if it ever becomes active. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I confused that with a more recent deletion discussion of the same photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProFromDover

Declined your CU request, I think you would have more luck finding him to be a sock of 180north, not Regan per this. Feel free to re endorse if you still think it's good to go. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. Because these two edits are contradictory, it would stand to reason that they're not the same. The CU already came back as Neutralviews being unrelated to the other accounts you blocked (180north, LongLiveReagan), so... I don't know. Maybe it's Abbruscato (talk · contribs)? But we have no way of running a CU on that. Sigh. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I'll double check over it tonight, see if behaviour is conclusive enough. For now you should come join us on IRC :) -- DQ (t) (e) 01:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for your help in dealing with all those sockpuppets!! MissPageantNews (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving User:CorrectFactsUSA et al. SPI. Sorry that I missed the earlier ones when I raised the SPI. I am just wondering, should I be digging further before raising an SPI? Thanks FrankFlanagan (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Snakeswithfeet SPI

Hi. I noticed you blocked this user based on "your own findings". May I ask what those were? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant based on my own conclusions about their edit patterns. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That they edited 5 articles that a banned user also edited? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Among others, yes. I'm not going to fully divulge my rationale, especially when it's unnecessary. Like right now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

vintagekits is back

Now editing as Vk02. Kittybrewster ☎ 03:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added another case under Vintagekits, but next time you should be the one to do it. Actually, can you go over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vintagekits and add your evidence? I'm not going to do your dirty work for you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

HanzoHattori

HanzoHattori is back with his static IP 94.246.154.130 (was blocked for the last two years). As the user has been going on an editing and harassment rampage the very minute he was unblocked, urgent action might be beneficial. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal - Guidance needed

Hello Helloannyong! I would like to thank you for the huge contribution you make in the sock department. I've seen your name there a bzillion times.

We need some advice on this mess. Drmies suggested that I ask you.

Note that ages ago I socktagged a few with this IP as the master, as there was no registered user to choose from. I did this mainly to tie them together for others who come across the phenomena.

C.C.: User_talk:Drmies

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just say if you're too busy and I will ask someone else. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I've been kinda busy. I looked at it, but I'm not sure what outcome you want. Do you want all of those IPs indefinitely blocked? Or.. what? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I can see that you're very busy.

What we'd like is:

• for the guy to stop;
• for the whole thing to be handled somewhere other than my sandbox.

What do you advise? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

First, open an SPI case. If there's one account that you can link to these, great - list it under them; if not, use an IP. Next, don't just copy and paste your whole document in there. I'll comment on whatever you open after it's open (might be awhile; sometimes I go to sleep) and give my thoughts on it. You may also want to go to WP:EF and see if there's anything they can do to help. The IPs jump around a whole lot in location and the ranges are large, so rangeblock isn't really feasible here. The other issue is that they don't reuse IPs, so blocking an IP is largely unhelpful. But yeah, open a case and we'll see what we can do. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Many thanks for the info and suggestions. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo 87: Some clarification

Hello. Thanks for attending to the case.

You have said:

I don't know if the master forgot to log in or what...

Actually, in message in Talk:ImDisk, 89.204.137.229 has said:

...Thanks to User:Hugo 87 for fixing it again...

Which means that he was pretending not to be Hugo 87. Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell who's now hurt by your block, but it's not me or User talk:Hugo 87.  Check out WP:WQA#ImDisk and the "reply" section of your investigation. –89.204.153.230 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the conclusion of the SPI was. I only got word of it today (I was notified on my talk page on the 9th, but I only got the e-mail for wikipedia today, for some reason). Since is it archived, I supose it's already closed, so shouldn't reply there.

As could be seen on ImDisk's logs before it's deletion, the IP mentioned "89.something", had made edits properly annoucing them in the talk page and/or page edits, however, Fleet Command reverted those as vandalism.

I got word of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ImDisk, so I checked the article, noticed this, and undid those revertions. This may have been seen as me doing something, and IP justifying this, but checking the times and dates of these edits, would have revealed that it's justifications where made prior to my actions, and all I did was merely undo those revertions really, and the reason I even noticed these is stated above.

Aditionally, I'm from Argentina, and all the IPs I've ever logged in from are from Argentina (except maybe on January, when I worked at a company with a proxy in USA, though I'm not sure if I logged in from work).

I hope this clarifies the situation enough,

Cheers, HuGo_87 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still waiting for some kind of explanation how an admin with the checkuser right missed that my German o2-DE IPs can't be related to IPs in Argentina used by Hugo 87. Admittedly the last edit times were suspicious, but I'm confident that the info added on SPI/Hugo_87 before this page was archived would show cases, where the investigated user and the IPs used by me simultaneously worked on unrelated articles. –89.204.137.133 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh.. I don't have checkuser, and I didn't block based on any checkuser results. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, well, if all you saw is what I could see in the edit timeline, we can agree that on this particular day Hugo 87 wasn't editing while the blocked IP (= me) edited. Still odd that you blocked it, after all I announced the removal of the "stub" tags days before on the talk page, and the alleged vandalism was later shown to be no vandalism. What I'm trying to say, if you seriously intended to block me it didn't work, I get a new dynamic IP quite often (mobile broadband). –89.204.137.133 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; I'll be sure to heed that in the future. This issue is closed now anyway, so let's move along. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and it should be obvious why there are unregistered users. –89.204.137.133 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Breein1007

Hey,

I was wondering if you might clarify your comment re "It'll make our jobs easier for determining this by behavior"? It would seem that a checkuser would demonstrate pretty conclusively whether those two accounts were the same, no? Additionally, I realize the User:Breein1007 account is stale, but it went stale b/c that user started to get into some trouble at ANI. As such, this would seem like potential block evasion.... Also User:Bob drobbs denied being associated with the older account, which would seem to be a violation of WP:SOCK. NickCT (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't run a checkuser here; Breein1007 hasn't edited in ten months, so the data on them is stale - and therefore unusable. As such, this will have to be determined by behavioral evidence, which per my comment, you have made considerably easier to use. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps I'm confused b/c I don't understand CheckUser. I guess you're telling me that it would be impossible to go back to the time period in question and simply check the IPs that the edits in question are associated with? NickCT (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Checkuser data is only viable for a certain period of time; after that it's unusable (the SPI parlance is stale). In this case, the data on Breein1007 is stale. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail

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.

RE User:Conops

Reason I put Conops as master over Simuliid is that it is an older account. Anyway, thank you for the prompt response. --Rammaum 04:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rammaum (talk • contribs)

Email

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.

S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Supernatural implications

Is there some, um, conclusion to be drawn from the fact that that your edit count at WP:3O has been stuck at 666 since May 25? Do we need to call in an exorcist? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned user Jackjit again editing using his revolving 118 IP

Jackjit's back! The banned user Jackjit is again vandalizing Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld article again (and others) using his revolving 118 IP. He is again making the same edits he tried to make over a month ago when he was blocked. Please, can we put a stop to this quicker than last time? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In the most recent additions to the case, both incidents were handled in under 24h. Is that not fast enough for you? Going forward, list the IP at the case and we'll handle it. In the meantime, I've blocked that IP for a few days. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to his editing for months at Red Eye article, using sockpuppets, IPs, etc, until Gadfium (talk) spotted him using his revolving/dynamic 118 IP and editors were alerted to his past as Jackjit. But it still took weeks before he was successfully blocked, and frankly I strongly suspect he is using another fixed IP editing there still to this day. Thanks for the help. I do appreciate how hard it is to stop this stuff. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Tasc0

Yeah, I know it sounds far fetched but my gut feeling (Baseball Bugs and I, we seemed to have that ability to sniff out socks for some strange reason) is telling me that he is indeed using that IP to return here, taking very great care to avoid his old topic. I acknowledge that there has been a boatload of similar IP behaviours but this guy is really cunning, there's subtlety in his edit which I can't pinpoint but the similar way of nick-picking at words and with concise edit summaries both produces. Without provocations, he won't react and I merely just pointed out to him about something in his word of choice and he blew his top, something not missed by me when I went through his edit and noted in his BAN endorsement. The lapse between now and 2008 might not produce anything concrete but the similar pattern of outburst is something worth watching out for. Also, it took Σ to provide that critical link which I lacked until yesterday that I was finally able to connected the dots. That said, what is your advice/thought on this and if so, what other course of action should I undertake? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There was one case three years ago where another account was found to be unrelated. Since then there hasn't been any codified reports that I can find. I'm sure if I searched through the logs, I could find you a dozen similar threats made by various people. I'm sorry, but the current evidence does not support the conclusion that this IP is the same guy from three years ago - so blocking with that justification seems wrong. Now having said that, the IP is being abusive, so we could block for that. But they were warned by 28bytes a few days ago and haven't really said anything worth blocking for, so I'm a little hesitant. Let me know if they return to their abusive ways, though, and we'll figure something out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and noted. Should I give the IP a wide berth? To be clear, is templating the IP talk page with an ISP template wrong? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not wrong, but that's usually done when we have a long history of that IP being abusive. That isn't the case here. I'd say leave it off for now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Okie dokie. Thanks again. Cheers! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP is edit warring on the article again this morning --Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cyperuspapyrus

Since you were the blocking admin for Cyperuspapyrus, can you have a look at this edit, the bit about "I personally don't understand why there's always a proposal for deletion in pages concerning kickboxing organizations" seems fishy given his past contributions. Mtking ^(edits) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, would like to ask for advice. If a user with limited history of contributions participates in discussion like a pro, is there any way to check for sock-puppetry? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean.. yeah, we can check to see if they're a sockpuppet, but usually we like there to be some sort of evidence and guess as to who the master is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, could you please have a look at this user. The account was launched on July 14 and the first comment they made in the talkpage was this one. This is one other of their edits. I don't think that a newcomer could start with this level of knowledge of WP.

The articles they edited have commonness with NovaSkola (see this, but I really cannot think of motive, so it would probably be very tendencious to suspect the later. What is the right action now? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 03:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a hard one. It could also be an IP that edited before and has just registered an account. No one account there really sticks out to me. If you're 100% sure that it's a sock then you can list it at SPI, but I'm not sure on this one.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. WP:SPI seems to require mentioning the "SOCKMASTER". Is there a way to list it at SPI without mentioning a master candidate? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No - hence why I said if you want to list the account, you should probably figure out who the master is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

a word of appreciation

	for endless outstanding work as an SPI clerk
	ever since I can remember reporting or reading about sockpuppets, you've been calmly and efficiently dealing with them. I therefore take great pleasure in awarding you the sockpuppet-confuzzling barnstar. Keep up the great work! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if you do barnstar-type things, and I realise your userpage doesn't accommodate them, but I thought it should be said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I do actually have a page for them and I link to it from my user page, but it's not wholly obvious. Still, I do appreciate the vote of confidence. Thanks again! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zuggernaut

I apologise for wasting your time regarding the above investigation. There is something odd going on but clearly it is not socking. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Van Tuong Nguyen

You protected this page claiming "persistent sockpuppetry". There is no such thing. You should not give dishonest justifications when in fact you seem to be protecting it to give the upper hand to one side in a content dispute. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)