User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Checkuser

Could you run a quick checkuser for me, please? I have a probable DUCK sock of an indef blocked user and I need to confirm. The sock is Sjick14, the indef-blocked user is CaptainHog. SPI at the far bottom will have the most current IP and account information, of course. Diannaa usually handles these, but she is offline at the moment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:57 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you check for any sleepers while you are at it and see if a rangeblock is possible? Much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:57 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

I filed an SPI related to the above request. Just letting you know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:25 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Taken care of by Doug Weller. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:15 on September 3, 2016 (UTC)

What to do when AfDs are discovered to be eligible for speedy deletion?

I discovered a new page called I Want to Live (2015), which I nominated for deletion for the obvious lack of notable content. About half a day later, I discovered that not only was the article creator a sockpuppet of KurdoKardir, but that the article had been deleted just a couple hours earlier, qualifying it for speedy deletion, on the grounds of Wikipedia:G4. With this new knowledge, am I able to bring it up for speedy deletion, or will I have to let the AfD run its course? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, terrific. Now, in future instances, if I discover that a page with an AfD nomination actually qualifies for speedy deletion, should I add a speedy deletion tag on top of it, or simply go to an administrator again to address the problem? I've been here for a long time, but I admit that I wasn't entirely sure about this scenario. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You couldn't have tagged it G5 because the new sock hadn't yet been blocked. You could have tagged it G4, but it might've been a bit confusing. I would have gone to the admin who deleted the article in the first AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well, thankfully you have been one of the involved admins. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KurdoKardir, I have a few new socks awaiting some action, as they're at it again. It probably wasn't even necessary for CU request, given how blatant it is. To quote C-3PO, "Here we go again". DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, meet Soma.farda. He too likes Kurdish cinema. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Met and blocked, along with another account I saw when I checked. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Admitted sock of Osman Bey Comment

You recently blocked a pernicious sock master using the name osman bey. He is socking and attempting to meat puppet here. FYI. I am not familar with the ins and outs of SPI so I wasn't sure where to put this. --Adam in MO Talk 00:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Osman bey was confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock of Blahhhas. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Please see this. It's been moved back, but the user who moved the page is clearly not here. Not sure if a block is the answer, but I have warned them. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Non-administrator comment) Note that the editor, Markkim77, was warned two days ago with a level 3 vandalism warning. The editor who warned them was the same person whose userpage they moved. I'd say give them a "warning shot" block. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi, Bbb23. There's an unblock request from an editor you blocked for sockpuppetry back in January, at User talk:Mahveotm. Previous unblock requests were declined by Boing! said Zebedee and Only. Only also suggested WP:Standard offer, and the blocked editor has taken up that suggestion. I am expressing no opinion on whether the account should be unblocked, but perhaps you can have a look at it and give an opinion on whether the editor can now be given a second chance, after eight months. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Finding more context for a block

Hi there,

This concerns User:ZN3ukct, but it's something I've come across and wondered in the past (I don't have examples at the ready and have no idea if you were the blocking admin for those). You blocked as a checkuser block, but there's no incoming link from an SPI page, no tag/message on the user page, nor the talk page. It's just sort of a mystery sock, as far as I can tell. How does a non-admin find out more? There are a number of reasons why the information is useful, but just for example, if it was block/ban evasion, comments might need to be struck and/or edits reverted.

Thanks — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose by asking the blocking admin as you have. However, in many instances, the fact that a CU doesn't tag a block means they don't want to. That's true in this case as well, so I'm afraid I can't satisfy your curiosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret "don't want to". What sorts of reasons are there for not wanting to? Perhaps something along the lines of not disclosing a connection between an IP and an account, or one account with another that disclosed personal information or somesuch? But to be clear, it's not just curiosity -- it's information that affects various processes, discussions, etc. and makes it easier/harder to e.g. identify other socks. I remember at one point looking into possible paid editor socks and coming across one (or more?) such blocks without information that might've connected a couple other accounts, made by an inactive admin. Granted, I'm so unready to provide specifics that you might as well consider this a hypothetical, but ultimately while, yes, most instances can probably be resolved by consulting the blocking admin, it leaves a gap in information that the admin might not remember or be available to provide. But, again, I say that ignorant of reasons for omitting such information. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing that needs to be done because of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rhododendrites, if there's something sensitive you'd rather not discuss on a talk page (such as sensitive diffs), you can always email Bbb23. That is, if Bbb23 is ok with you emailing them. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think it's Rhododendrites who has something sensitive to discuss; it's me. In any event, I don't mind if Rhododendrites e-mails me, but in this case there would be no point.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw phrases like I'm so unready to provide specifics that you might as well consider this a hypothetical and took this to mean they didn't want to publicly discuss the matter in such a public place, but I do see what you mean, Bbb23. And, yes, CUs pretty much can't discuss details of accounts they've blocked that aren't already known publicly (like in an SPI case file or on a talk page, etc.), probably not even with other admins. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can't help but feel a little brushed off here. Again, I'm less concerned with this particular case than how to deal with missing information of this sort and, perhaps more relevant, why such information would be missing to begin with. "Didn't want to" is pretty opaque, and responding to general questions with a specific "nothing more to be done" doesn't make it much clearer :P. I'm not asking for sensitive information here, just the sorts of reasons a tag/SPI wouldn't be there when it would be useful for it to be there. Even "yep, privacy stuff is the reason" give me something to go on. Am I thinking in the wrong direction altogether, and it was actually just a matter of forgetting/not getting around to tagging it? Or perhaps I'm mistaken and it's not even standard to tag socks as such? As I'm asking more about process than this specific case, would you prefer I inquire elsewhere? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I prefer that you not belabor it here. If you want to ask someone else, that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Vaishal

Thank you for a swift and thorough response to this SPI. Mehmit and PearBoy19 were both quacking at me, but I didn't want to use a scatter-gun approach and shoot myself in the foot. Appreciate your diligence! Keri (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:I Love Bridges

Hi Bbb23,

Is there any particular reason why you keep reverting the IP who added the banned and locked templates to the page, and then semi-protected the page from editing? The account is indeed globally locked, and although not formally banned, they are LTA banned. 73.114.22.255 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not the IP's role to tag accounts. In fact, it's not anyone's role except an administrator or member of the SPI team. And you're heading for a block if you continue making the kinds of edits you're making. Nor am I interested in discussing it with you any further.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect page

Hello, Could you possibly delete the redirect talk page: Talk:Acts of Shmona and of Guria and of Habbib. There is no archiving that needs to be saved. It was a move mistake in which I have undone and have only kept the main redirect page associated with this page for alternative spelling. Thank you & Cheers. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reed77

I see you've blocked Warlock for being a sock of Reed77. I've dealt with Warlock for a few weeks and the behavior he has shown in the past few days is identical to the prolific sockmaster The abominable Wiki troll, as you can see at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive.LM2000 (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reopened a case at SPI for all accounts involved with Reed and the blankings on this page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll.LM2000 (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000: Thanks for the heads up. I don't think my Talk page has been that heavily vandalized ever (I was happily asleep). I've had little experience with The abominable Wiki troll, but I believe you're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

That 30-account sockfarm must not have been fun to wade through. Thanks for putting up with me! GABgab 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh, can't blame that on you. I blame it on MER-C (), but I've done a lot of checks of MER-C's filings, and I go into it with my eyes wide open.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

CraigIsBae2

Thank you. I realized after posting it that it probably didn't warrant a sockpuppet investigation. No response is required. Dan D. Ric (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wolfgang Beltracchi

I just famousblocked Wolfgang Beltracchi (40 years, Art Forgery) German art forger (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE) but haven't tagged. I see your socktag at his other account. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and he's blocked at es.wikipedia and is making edits at lots of languages. Probably lock is needed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I just did that a moment ago. You could tag your puppet as suspected if you like. If you want me to run another check, I can. Ajraddatz is often willing to globally lock without having to request it at meta.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Locked that account and a couple other obvious ones on the same IP :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. The one I blocked is now tagged by me with {{sockpuppet|David Adam Kess|proven}}. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

as always

thank you for your dedicated work JarrahTree 23:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You've done some good work yourself. :-) Pretty picture on your userpage. Australia is beautiful. Thanks for stopping by.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

List of cultural heritage sites in Karachi

There's been a lot of activity over there by 11 new accounts, many of which seem to divide into three groups based on edits:

St. Andrew’s/Patrick's Church - [1][2][3]

• Sadaf zohra (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 04:05, 30 September 2016.
• Ali Shaikh Abbas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 03:57, 30 September 2016.
• Daniyal zafar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 03:42, 30 September 2016.

Sindh Madressatul Islam University - [4][5] (possibly [6], too)

• Indilamazhar012 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 02:29, 29 September 2016.
• Maaz jilani (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 04:18, 21 September 2016.

Sea View/Clifton - [7][8][9]

• Rabiashahid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 01:55, 29 September 2016 (created Indila mazhar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 02:23, 29 September 2016).
• Syed Mohammad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 01:31, 28 September 2016.
• Rehman Bahadur (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 08:17, 8 September 2016.

Possibly related:

• Izna abdi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 01:46, 29 September 2016
• Fizza Jafri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 01:45, 28 September 2016
• Shehrozkas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - created 02:59, 28 September 2016

Note the similar use of images, the time-clustering (most accounts created on the 28th, 29th, and 30th) and how Rabiashahid's alternate account's name is similar to that of Indilamazhar012.

Sorry to bring this up if it seems frivolous, I just noticed that all this disruption had forced the page to be protected. Pinging Saqib. Thanks, GAB^gab 03:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Please create an SPI. It's too much to handle without a case. You can also self-endorse for a CU if you wish. If you do, let me know when the case is ready for me to look at. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect these are socks. This user uploaded photos to Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan using different account but the pattern of uploads are same. For instance, the file names of uploads to Commons are similar to username. The user uploaded some nice images using different accounts with the hope of winning more than one prizes. I am not sure whether we should delete the image or not but his submissions to WLM are already disqualified. --Saqib (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

OK - I had thought that creating the same SPI for separate sock-groups would be convoluted, but I'll go ahead. GAB^gab 13:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

Impersonation

I've put a user impersonation block on Bbb23 73H. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Thanks for the block and the heads up. I suspect I know who it is, but it's not worth confirming now that the account is blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Bulletproof Batman

Who was Bulletproof Batman? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't share that with you, Anna. I can you with a little information, but not the ultimate answer, if you want to e-mail me. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That's okay then. No worries. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock

Requesting you to look into this. Mainly used for trolling and WP:CANVASS. Mar4d (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oldest account

Re: this. Sorry, I thought it was the oldest account. Must've got confused. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: You can atone for your sins after I post the findings because some significant behavioral evaluation will be needed, and you're one of the best editors to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If I can sufficiently clear my head of opiate painkillers then I will indeed. I've just spotted Humayun Ahen as another who has recently appeared to edit the tribe article, along with a related article about the source used in it. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:JayJasper

Why did you revert me? All the socks are tagged. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 20:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You are neither an administrator nor an SPI clerk. As I did say in my edit summary, it isn't your place to do it. If you wish, you can contact Callanecc and ask him if he wants the userpage tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Special:Contributions/MDNe, Special:Contributions/Enteair, Special:Contributions/Addamchewy, and more 82.132.xx IP range. 115.164.88.208 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Cephlopoid

• Cephlopoid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This new user seems to be WP:QUACKing a bit (or at least trolling). It might be worth a quick CU when you have a moment. I don't have another account to link it to, so can't file a SPI case. Murph9000 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For quick work on blocking that guy who vandalized my talk page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative account

Hi. Alternative accounts do not have to be declared when there is a legitimate reason: my laptop is not secure, and it's to protect my privacy. -- Markshale (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I see you're a checkuser, and you should be able to verify directly what my main account is: I've edited from the same address on my main account today. I trust you will keperep it private. Flyer22's accusations are completely illegitimate, and I'm really quite offended by them. -- Markshale (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, please compare my editing/commenting style with that of my main account. They are identical, and have been so for over a decade. -- Markshale (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Markshale: I think it would be easier if you e-mail me the name of your other account. Also, if possible, it would be good for you to e-mail me twice, once from Markshale and once from the other account. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Posting from the laptop again: I don't have e-mail set up on either account, for the aforesaid privacy reasons, and I don;t think I can send you email unless I have one. I have an ancient throwaway email account I once used to communicate with the WMF before that I should be able to use from another laptop; I'll see if I can access it tonight, so I can do so.

I'm very keen to see the back of this nonsense; I know the WMF have logs of many, many things, and a pretty good idea of how you can cross-correlate them, and I have nothing to hide from the WMF in this regard. However, the Internet is full of crazies, and I hope you can see why I'm very, very cautious with revealing my identity -- once leaked, you can never get it back.

I don't bear any animus toward Flyer22 -- who I think I may have interacted with in the past in much more pleasant circumstances -- as I understand that they are clearly very, very upset, and I don't want to know the backstory behind it. But I would at least like a polite acknowledgement that they were, in this case, mistaken.

Also: for future reference, does the WMF/you have a public key, and the ability to use GPG? If that were possible, it would be much easier to send messages privately to checkusers, stewards, etc., without needing to bind an email to an account. -- Markshale (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Markshale: I have another idea how to do this. Please edit from your main account using the laptop. If you're unwilling to do that because of your security concern, the main account, if it's who I think it is, has an alternative account with e-mail. That account could send me an e-mail. Another idea is for both you and your main account to set up an e-mail temporarily, send me e-mail from the new accounts, and then get rid of it if for some reason you don't want it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, those are really good ideas. I'll set my main account up on the laptop, and then edit from there using that account. If that's not sufficient, I can try one of the other things. (By the way, I've now managed to gain access to the old email account, although how long the old laptop will hold up for is unknown: you might want to send me email there, and I can pick it up and, say, echo a challenge string you send me back from this account.) Having a back-channel would also let me discuss some other things that might be conceivably be relevant to this matter, although I can't at the moment see how there could practically be any direct link between them. -- Markshale (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Markshale: The edits came through, and I'm tentatively satisfied you are who you say you are (so to speak). Based on that edit, I'm going to take some preliminary action, but it would be helpful to have a private discussion with you before I decide what further action, if any, is needed. Thanks for cooperating.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, you're welcome, I hope you can see now that I am high;y unlikely to be the person on the other side of the SPI: I have a vast edit history of consistent good behavior, from a small number of different IP ranges, with no attempt at concealment of edit style or origin address. At the same time, I'm also aware of the existence of checkuser, and that my edits are available for scrutiny at any time, if such an occasion arises, as it just has.

While I've occasionally used alternate accounts such as this laptop account, their use has been limited to attempting to partition my editing of Wikipedia for anonymity purposes, and I hope has been entirely within policy. Gicen my long editing experience, you might also consider that if I were ever to want to become a bad actor, I wouls have done a much better job of it: I would not have chosen to do so from my own IP address, with my normal editing habits, in a way that could easily be back-traced at any time.

Finally, there's my character overall: I see my Wikipedia editing as part of my life's work., and I hope you can see from my editing history overall that I have invested over a decade of my personal time into trying to make Wikipedia a good place for everyone to edit and read -- how likely is it that I would change so drastically to do something so out of character, or risk my personal reputation and emotional investment doing (hopefully, mostly) good work on Wikipedia in such a way?

Now compare this with Flyer22's purported evidence, which falls apart under close inspection. It consists of (a) a set of editing habits that are as far as I can see almost entirely due to my use of cut-and-paste edit comments and the use of the word "more" in summaries, and (b) that I once disagreed with them about the creation of one article, and then as far as I can see the rest is entirely driven by confirmation bias, and the belief that because they think I'm this person, anything I do, of any sort, is from their viewpoint further evidence that they are right. If I don't respond, it's supposedly evidence of wrongdoing. If I do respond, it's supposedly evidence of wrongdoing. Similarly with changes, or lack of them, in editing style. Or, in one of the most absurd cases, in making redirects. And so on. It's the logic of a witch-hunt. If the witch sinks, she's guilty; if the witch floats she's guilty also.

Sometime a coincidence is a coincidence. The apparent pattern of a large number of interlocking habits are all explained by the cut-and-paste summaries, and the rest are pure chance, and confirmation bias -- and apparently, towering rage and upset, and unwillingness to back down to someone that Flyer22 now wrongly perceives to be their antagonist in disguise -- from then on. With a sufficient number of other editors to scrutinize, and a fiery fervor that you are fighting the good fight, sooner of later someone will fit the bill, and it looks like I'm it.

To sum up: to the best of my knowledge, I've not made any abusive edits using either this or my master account, and Flyer22 has not presented any. There is absolutely no technical, or non-coincidental behavioral evidence that supports Flyer22's accusations, and plenty of technical -- and behavioral, and character -- evidence to show that I am not, to the extent that you can prove a negative. I'd like to think that that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I invite your to review my edits and logged history as much as you like, and ask other checkusers to check your conclusions. I think you will find that the record demonstrates that I am an uninvolved recipient of Flyer22's entirely understandable, but in this case mistaken, efforts to free themselves of this abuser.

I've never been on the end of a witch-hunt before, not have I ever been the subject of someone else's obsession. It's not a pleasant experience.

If you want to send an email to the email address associated with the master account's alternate, I'd be happy to give you some more information that I don't feel comfortable about revealing here; however, it may take quite some time before I'm in a position to reply -- probably late tomorrow.

-- Markshale (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations close

I just had a number of editors email me, stating that you closed this case and that they found the action inappropriate. Given what was at stake regarding this case, that you stated above to Markshale that you are "tentatively satisfied you are who you say you are (so to speak)," and given that you and I have had a tempestuous history (as seen here and here, for example), I have to agree that I do not think that it was appropriate for you to close this case. In fact, and I thought you were aware of this, I am not comfortable with you acting in an administrative capacity regarding me. It would have been better had you left it to someone else to close. For example, I had contacted Euryalus, whom I trust, for a second checkuser opinion. As seen with this case you were involved in, where you stated that it was "highly likely" a sock, and a different checkuser stated, "I don't feel the technical evidence really matches up at all. At most, I'd say it's vaguely Possible that you could be the same editor, and that clearly isn't enough to justify a block. Unblocked.", checkusers can have different opinions. Having a second checkuser opinion on a case like the one you just closed should have been a priority.

Furthermore, the technical opinion Johnuniq gave on the matter of fooling the checkuser data is sound. I asked other editors familiar with a lot of the logistics that come with computers and being able to appear as two different people, and their answers were similar and/or more in depth to Johnuniq's. Those answers were not like the reply that Montanabw gave. From the beginning, you seemed convinced that Markshale is not Tisane, regardless of any behavioral evidence, and that the case should be closed. You seemed annoyed by Montanabw's comment, as though her comment had influenced others supporting me, and you did not answer my question about who the drive-by sock SSP Patrolman (talk · contribs) is. I understand that Ivanvector is probably okay with you having taken matters into your own hands, but I still find the action inappropriate. And as expected, after the close with no block on this account, there is this type of drive-by edit from a throwaway account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)