User talk:DoRD/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


How to ask for joe-job sockmaster check

Hi, I'm mostly uninvolved, but new Bobinisrael (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) is convinced that Donfarberman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) who you just checked against him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobinisrael is a joe-job, and his mistake seems to confirm it. Bob and most of the experienced editors interacting with him are experiencing some heavy CIVIL/AGF/NPA issues such that it might be worth looking into the possible to prevent any further flame-outs. But I can't figure out how to ask. What's the right way to ask that one user be checkusered against unspecified others? —Cupco 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't run checks without sufficient evidence of probable sockpuppetry linking two or more accounts. In other words, fish CheckUser is not for fishing, i.e. we can't just check someone to see if anyone else turns up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I see. Bob made some accusations against two specific editors he suspected on my talk page. I'm not sure if I feel comfortable repeating them because I can think of two more who are just as likely. Is there anyway to tell if someone got caught in Donfarberman's block with the same IP? —Cupco 19:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I will make one further comment at the SPI case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets category

I have a bit of a technical question: when I tag someone as {{Sockpuppet|Username|suspected}}, does anything (like a report being triggered) happen? I'm referring in this case to User:Breaking Good, who, based on edit pattern, is a sockpuppet of Domain Flag, along with three others. - Biruitorul Talk 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

All the template does, other than the obvious tag, is to add the suspect to the category "Wikipedia suspected sockpuppets of <username>". If you wish to file a report, you'll have to do it via the form at WP:SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Striving wellwisher

Thanks for commenting in that SPI-report. I assume that even though a check-user was declined, the report is still open and will eventually be subject to administrator decision? I don't have a lot of experience with SPI-cases, but I assure the complaint is a real one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the case will remain open until a clerk or patrolling admin reviews it and decides what action, if any, is appropriate. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


I was of the belief that the clock started the second the block is issued (which in my case was 05:41 on September 26).

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but that's why I issued the request when I did.

Vjmlhds 16:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Your belief is correct. The block was applied at 05:41 UTC on September 26 and it expired 72 hours later at 05:41 UTC on September 29. I'm not sure where you saw 13:30, unless it was due to an autoblock on your IP address, but that has already expired as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


That the Department of Redundancy Department would remove a perfectly adequately good platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) (and leaving a silly duck untouched), saying "rm unnecessary image" (my bold and italicized emphases), strikes me as oddly queer. Signed, Drmies, at roughly 9:31 AM CST on 2 October 2012. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant no offense with my removal of the image - a very interesting image, I might add, as I don't think I've ever seen a platypus skeleton before - but I don't think it has any place there in the SPI case. I do agree, however, that the megaphoneduck template is rather silly, and I think that it is often overused. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Your answer is decidedly unredundant, DoRD, and that saddens me a bit. I did, of course, find a way to continue my disruption in other, hidden ways; also, I'm thinking of starting a PAC, a Platypus Action Committee. If I don't invite you, will you join? Drmies (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666

Hello, can you please have a look here again. Please, check everthing you want and what is needed. But what this user is doing is a bit to much and i realy feel offended now. This is realy not normal and I realy do not understand what is wrong with this user. Please, read the accusations he mades. Or are here any admins, who do something against such things? Thanks a lot. --Brainbug666 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, once again can you please have a look, what is going on there? Thanks, or are there any other admins? --Brainbug666 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A clerk or CheckUser will be around eventually to decide whether the case has merit and what to do with it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.--Brainbug666 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz

When you did the checkuser in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz/Archive did you do a check for sleepers?

If the answer is no, please could you do one.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to trouble you, but would it be possible please to answer my questions--Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)?
I guess I never got around to answering you - sorry about that! If I had found any other accounts, I would have listed them along with my findings. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Adityasaxena.corp's unblock request

Hi DoRD. Please could you comment on the unblock request at User talk:Adityasaxena.corp? I'm willing to unblock him/them if they agree to a voluntary ban on cross-editing. Yunshui  10:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Commented there. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Much obliged - he's now unblocked. All the best, Yunshui  12:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Was I out of line suspecting TheVforVendetta? Just so I know for next time. Thanks :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I share your suspicions and will be commenting shortly. However, please use the form at WP:SPI next time you file a report so that the formatting is correct and it is properly tagged. If I didn't have the old report on my watchlist, yours would never have been noticed. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
A thousand pardons for bypassing the SPI thing. I wondered why it all looked so different. I was expecting an "Add your...below the line" but there wasn't one. I promise to do it right next time. Many thanks for the feedback, and love your username. Very Mojo Jojo. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Berean Hunter

Did you consider whacking him with the make-a-clerk-by-four yet?  :-) — Coren (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he's doing a fine job, but it's not my decision alone. ;) Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I became aware of the discussion started a couple of hours earlier, a couple of hours too late.  :-) — Coren (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


A question: 22:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That account actually is a sock of someone else unrelated to Excuseme99, as far as I can tell. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemesis

In your edit comment you said you were "marking case as closed" but the Enemesis SPI is still open. I can withdraw my comment if you intended to close it. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to mark the case as closed (or to comment on the case) as all I did was to remove the extra section headings. I suspect that Firefox autocompleted the edit comment and I saved it without noticing. Sorry for the confusion! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for cleaning up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22 RashersTierney (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Young, again

You have intervened previously in the case of attempts to re-create articles for the British cyclist/triathlete Robert Young, who does not meet Wikipedia notability standards, and in the sockpuppetry of the editor behind them (eg here) You may be interested in this and this. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan kirkpatrick SPI

I saw you closed it, but the articles he created were not deleted. Are they going to be?...William 02:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, but they could also have been tagged with {{db-g5|Ryan kirkpatrick}} if I had not been available. Happy Holidays! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Britannia Airways Flight 105

Hello DoRD, the article was quite reasonable - even if a banned user has created it. Any chance of getting it back from Nirvana, so the content can be edited again ?Inwind (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I was out of town, away from my computer when I saw this request and I simply forgot about it. My apologies for not responding sooner! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-prot of David Tennant

Hi, I left you a message but SnotBot has archived it already. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it wasn't intentional - I must have mis-clicked something on Twinkle. Move protection has been restored. Thanks for letting me know. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Iffy user name

Hey, DoRD, would you take a peek at the following user name? [1] He/she just registered and is going at an article with some vigor, but the user name is what is of concern to me; does it meet the standing guidelines? Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the name concerns me as well, but it looks like a borderline case. However, their edits are certainly not those of a new user and I have blocked the account as a sockpuppet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not surprised something like that block was in order; those edits were a bit practiced for a newbie. --Drmargi (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Redcoyote18/Bambifan101 CU.

I have a question. You said in the sock investigation on Redcoyote18/Bambifan101 that you're still waiting for another CU to take a look at it, but there hasn't been any response for a while now. I've just added more input from other editors saying that he might not be it, but still no conclusion. Am I doing this wrong, or you've already contacted the new CU, and he/she is investigating? I don't mind the result one way or the other, since if this is a new stubborn user, I'd like to give him a fair chance. I just wanna know if I should be doing something or not doing something. This is the first sock investigation I request, you see. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't specifically asked anyone else to look at the case, but someone eventually will. For now, I don't think that there is any hurry to take action since the user is not being overly disruptive or making a large number of edits. However, I do apologize for the delay. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Eh, you're too nice. :D There's no need to apologize. I'm in no particular rush either, just wondering. Thank you for your response. I'll wait then. Cheers. ^^ Anthonydraco (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


We might have another sock of Bowei Huang 2 at the ref desk, in the person of Republicanism (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like you may be on to something there. If you don't mind, go ahead and file an SPI so that we can get more eyes on it and generate a "paper trail". Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I'll wait until someone gets annoyed enough to block him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


...for not following procedure on SPI. It didn't seem right when I did it, but I've not filed one before. I'll look for and follow directions next time.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, and no apology necessary. I noticed it when the account was reported by another editor, so it worked out in the end. Filing a report at SPI isn't the most straightforward task here, so mistakes are bound to happen. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or leave a message at WT:SPI. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hah, ditto for me, too! I have less of an excuse, though. Now I know better; thanks! Writ Keeper 20:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes we do go straight to the archive per DENY, but this guy has created so many accounts, I always prefer to run checks. I will point out that {{SPI report}} has an undocumented parameter, admincomment=, which will file an SPI as a closed pro forma report. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


  • As can be seen from Curtis Clark's userpage, he is an employee of Cal Poly Pomona. Block my account along with user Scowlbelem. I will get legally unblocked very soon. Thanks--Operaurine (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not all of the accounts you blocked(confirmed) were created by me--Operaurine (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I added this one to the current case. --Drmargi (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Mangoeater's showing his hand, but mind taking a look at this Scowlbelem (talk · contribs) account he keeps mentioning? Even forging his signature [2]. (Incidentally, I CSD'ed the talk page, since I think we should apply DENY rather strenuously in this case, and RFPP'ed the SPI archive.) Still, though, I'm not sure why he's asking to be blocked; guess we'll have to wait to see what his next move is. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

<sigh> Yeah, they're both  Confirmed and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, Mangoeater1000 can read userpages.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Is back with a new sock, but the same old favorite places to edit. SPI filed (I flipped the user name when I first filed so it's in the directory as CSIDisneyfan); will they never learn? --Drmargi (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DeltaQuad fixed the case name before I could get to it, and I've just confirmed that this is another sock. Thanks for the heads-up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not the cleverest sock in the sock drawer, so she makes it easy. Thanks for handling it quickly. --Drmargi (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
ETA: My lordy, have you seen her talk page since I filed the SPI? She's back to full-on aggressive editing; it's the usual pattern. --Drmargi (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
With all the editing in the last couple of hours, I decided to go ahead and issue a block myself. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I wondered about that when I looked at the SPI, but saw it on the contribs. page. She always devolves into the same pattern, which at least makes it all easier. --Drmargi (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


No editing of the 182.188-ips in nearly a week?? Strange, seeing this, this, this, this, this, this, this. In fact, the whole history of Dhund Abbasi is full of it. Beside that, an IP edited here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhund Abbasi]. So I politely request a review of your decision! The Banner talk 14:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote was, "There's been no editing from those IPs in nearly a week," i.e. the IPs listed in the SPI have not been used in nearly a week. I see from the article history that other addresses in the range have been used more recently, but since the user likely is assigned a new address each time they connect to the Internet, blocking individual IPs is certainly pointless. Perhaps semi-protection would be a more effective route. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
And range-blocking? As far as I know that is possible too. The Banner talk 19:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but the range is far too busy for that. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Sugar... The Banner talk 14:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Can you direct my request to the appropriate avenue please? Ankh.Morpork 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The AN/I editnotice includes several suggestions. BLP RevDel/Oversight material should never be posted to a public noticeboard. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. Ankh.Morpork 19:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The material has already been revdel'd AndyTheGrump (talk)

SPI and IBs

Quick question: if a user suspects that another user with whom they have an IB is socking in order to harass them, are they allowed to name them as a master at SPI, or would this violate said IB? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am very tired tonight, so please forgive me if I don't answer your questions right away as the answers might not be correct or coherent. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries and no hurries. Go get some rest! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
After twice reading the wording of the IB, it might not be a violation to start an SPI, but that's just my opinion, and it could certainly be construed differently by others. You also might be barking up the wrong tree. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Can you point me towards the right tree to bark at?

NickCochrane SPI

Hi DoRD. In the NickCochrane SPI, User:Pburka has suspicions that NickCochrane might actually be User:Yohowithrum, a user who was blocked for multiple account violations. Both accounts have remarkably similar article interests and the NickCochrane actually deleted comments about the now-blocked Yohowithrum's COI.[3] Cochrane's account was created soon after Yohowithrum was blocked. Can you possibly do a CU on this account? I put it up in the SPI . Thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I dropped my two cents on my talkpage on this for the record. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Can I ask what's going on at the moment, and why no movement on this case has been made in 10 days? It's not good for either side to have this hanging. The LenaLeonard account hasn't edited since the third, but Nick still keeps, every now and again, making his dodgy edits. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi DoRD. I was reviewing OttomanJackson's unblock request when I noticed you suggested that he'd been socking as User:CatTazer69. That would scupper the appeal for me, and I'd be happy to decline it accordingly, but lacking your magic checkuser powers I can't see evidence that CatTazer is OttomanJackson's sock (the account is listed as a sock of User:Tonymontana1235312, and is blocked as a VOA). Can you just confirm that you've evidence of the connection before I go ahead and decline the unblock request? Cheers, Yunshui  13:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tonymontana1235312 primarily edited from a school IP (along with a number of other vandals). CatTazer only edited from the same residential IP using the same device as OttomanJackson. The whole lot are almost certainly classmates, but CT and OJ are  Confirmed to be the same as far as I can tell, and I have updated the sock tag to reflect the evidence. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for clarifying. Yunshui  13:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


I made a post to BLP/N regarding Ted Nugent that probably also needs to be revdeld. I redacted my own post, but the revision may need taking care of. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I hid your fist edit there. I'm guessing that you already know this, but please remember that the BLP policy applies everywhere. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I redacted it myself, and asked for the revdel :) Just a bit too late in remembering :) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I understand - I just wanted to give a quick reminder. Thanks for bringing the matter to our attention. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

editing another talk page

OK, I don't know what is going on here. First, I am not trying to start problems. I am trying to make sure that what I post remains documented somehow. Why is that a problem? I made no libelous statements on my own page, yet you deleted my comments. Now I have two warnings on my page that have no associated context so anyone else looking assume I made a horrendous accusation (which I did not). Now you threaten to revoke my editing privileges. Check my account; I have been here for years.

So why not be courteous and explain what justification you have in deleting my own comments from my own page. You might also explain when Wikipedia stopped caring about continuity, which is the entire point of a wiki to begin with. William J Bean (talk)

(talk page stalker) I have left a reply on Bean's talk page trying to give some additional context. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Gaijin42. William, much of the comment Gaijin42 left on your talk is spot on. The policy on BLP applies everywhere on the project - articles, talk pages, user and user talk pages, project pages and even edit summaries - so that is why I deleted the comments from your talk. If there is ever any question about the edit, any admin can still see what was there, and you are free to ask another admin for a second opinion as to whether the comment should have been deleted or not. But accusations of the sort of behavior you commented on are taken very seriously and, unless supported by very reliable sources, they should never be made anywhere on the project. The questions you left on the article talk page were troubling enough that they ended up being suppressed so that not even administrators can see them.
For my part, I apologize for not leaving a better explanation earlier. I was in a hurry, but I should have returned to leave additional comments when I had the time. I haven't done any research myself, but basically, the reason the topic isn't addressed in the article is because there apparently aren't any reliable sources for it. And, since there aren't sources for it, the question can't even be asked like that. If you find some sources, maybe, but given the person's high profile, if they existed, I expect that they would have been added to the article by now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for going though sockpuppet Sporty213's contributions at AfD and reverting them. It saved me some time. CtP (tc) 20:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem...abusive socks get the treatment they deserve. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I think Foac (talk · contribs) is another sock of this guy. Look at how he removed slashes from Sporty's comment, saying in a later edit summary "please don't change people comments". At another AfD, he restored Sporty's comment, which you had removed. Note his contribution history, first making his user and user talk pages blue links to look legitimate and then immediately jumping into AfD just like the other one. CtP (tc) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. I've sent him on his way. Thanks for the heads-up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

SPI discussion

Hello DoRD. I started an SPI of FergusM1970 (archived here) about a week ago because of some suspicious activity I saw on the AfD page for a Venezuelan company called Derwick Associates (linked here). The first SPI I started (the one on the 19th) concluded that 3 of the usernames involved were sockpuppets.

Some time after they were blocked, another username, Createmark, showed up to call for deletion and make similar comments to the previously blocked accounts (Createmark's contributions). These were his only edits and it seemed obvious to me that this should be added to the SPI from before. I thought this was reasonable, but FergusM1970 did not, as he wrote:

Alternatively it could be said to fall under paranoia. Can I respectfully request that, next time someone agrees with me, you sit down and take a deep breath before demanding a sockpuppet investigation? Thank you and enjoy your weekend.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that three names were blocked as confirmed sockpuppets in the last investigation, I would argue that my suspicion was not paranoia... You ran the check user, and this new name came up as unrelated to the others.

After Createmark came a vote from an IP address with the same agenda and only one day of editing, making it fourth single purpose account/sockpuppet (not including the vote that FergusM1970 added even though he was the nominator -- noted by jcgoble3) to vote for the page's deletion.

I don't have a dog in this fight and I have no previous contact with FergusM1970, however, I would be remiss in my Wikipedia duties if I let this kind of behavior stand. I must ask that you reconsider your decision based on behavioral evidence. It is possible that FergusM1970 is not involved and that it is entirely a coincidence, but after looking at the evidence, there is definitely something going on. Dreambeaver(talk) 23:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Createmark is technically  Unrelated to FergusM1970, and is editing from a different continent, in fact. However, I can't comment on the IP above without breaching the Privacy policy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand. I'm just concerned that of the 7 delete votes, 4 of them are socks/SPAs and 1 is the nominator. Something strange is going on and it concerns me. Dreambeaver(talk) 20:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A note

I think you accidentally forgot to fix Ryanspir's userpage when you unblocked him. Regards,   — C M B J   03:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not something I typically do, as I usually expect the editor to remove it, but since the tag has been sitting there for so long, I went ahead and did it myself. Thanks for letting me know. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Just hours after you confirmed Kotjap as a sockpuppet we have another new account asking silly Nazi related questions on the RD [4] and also bothering the helpdesk. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same user with another drawer full of socks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised he was allowed to stay as long as he was, what with that "Jap" embedded in his name. Maybe only a name coincidence, and their subjects of interest seem different; but "Tim" seems to turn up a lot in his socks. There was a TimmyTruck (talk · contribs), also a prolific socker, who was grouped under ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs), but I think TimmyTruck was his original user ID. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Duplication of content on User talk:Longjohnlong

I'm not sure why, but some content from this page appears to have been cut and pasted to User talk:Longjohnlong. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what they're up to, besides just being generally disruptive, but I reverted all their edits from the last couple of days. If they continue messing around, I may have to revoke their talk page. Thanks for the heads up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

CheckUser query

Nothing else to say here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I was just doing a spot check of your CheckUser blocks. The WP:CHECK policy states:

On the English Wikipedia, CheckUsers asked to run a check must ask for (and be given) clear evidence that a check is appropriate and necessary. The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run. Do not make any presumptions, no matter who asks.

I am not alleging any wrongdoing, but could you please explain what led you to suspect that the GloriaMarsh account was a sock account, and why you blocked it? --Surturz (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page.

This does not appear to have been done. Why not? --Surturz (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I received a request from a user that suspected that another account was a returning blocked user, and when I checked, there were a number of matching accounts. Unfortunately, since CU data expires after a period of time, I was not able to discern the original account. Alone, this account's edits don't look particularly suspicious, but with the rest of the accounts' edits and the CU data, I felt that a block was warranted. As for not leaving a block notice, it is common practice when dealing with sockpuppet accounts to not leave any talk page notices, but the block reason, {{checkuserblock-account}}, is noted in the account's block log. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. If I have read your response correctly, the only reason that you blocked the GloriaMarsh account was because the CheckUser tools returned a positive match with another account. You found no indication that the GloriaMarsh account was disrupting the project either by itself or in conjunction with the other sock accounts. Is that a correct interpretation of your response? Are you able to name one of the accounts that the GloriaMarsh account was socking? --Surturz (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You did misread. I wrote, "with the rest of the accounts' edits and the CU data". (emphasis added) And no, I don't have the rest of the accounts in front of me. To get a complete list would require me to re-run the checks, which I am not inclined to do. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
It occurred to me to find out which other CUs you were spot checking, so I looked at your contributions. To my surprise, other than DeltaQuad, I didn't see any other CUs being questioned about their blocks. I then noticed your comment to Int21h. It appears that you have misinterpreted my comments at WT:AN as I was not one of the three CUs who endorsed the block. Perhaps you should refrain from jumping to conclusions in the future. Regards ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for misinterpreting your comment. It would help if the CUs that endorsed the block were identified.

My spot check

It occurs to me that it is only fair that your authority should benefit from my scrutiny, so I'd like to mention what I did for my spot check. It was fairly informal. I had a look at your most recent 500 logged actions and checked about a dozen of the CheckUser blocks (focussing on those with user and talk pages). All except the one I asked about seemed straightforward good blocks. Per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CHECK, you replied promptly and civilly to my questions. Your reply, taken with the fact that the GloriaMarsh account used the "minor edit" flag in a similar manner to the other accounts blocked in the batch lead me to think that, on balance, you most likely got that block correct (with the caveat that the GloriaMarsh account does not seem to have made any disruptive edits). My review suggests you are doing a good job as a CheckUser. Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Re User:Greg Hedberg

This user is requesting unblock, having confused WP:RTV with WP:CLEANSTART and being blocked for socking. The history is a little unclear but I have the feeling it's a genuine request and I wondered if you had any thoughts? The unblock request and some responses are at the user's talk page. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I meant to reply a couple of hours ago, but got sidetracked by some other tasks. Since it appears that this user had some discussions with AGK, I'd like to see his take on it, but otherwise, I have no objections to unblocking as long as he understands where he went wrong. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 houston texans roster

Bold text 2013 texans draft picks are: No. Player Pos. College RD Pick 9 Tyler Bray QB Tennessee 3 89 21 Drew Frey SS Cincinnati 7 44 Ryan Griffin TE Connecticut 7 26 Corey Broomfield CB Missississippi State 6 84 Tavon Austin WR West Virginia 1 27 80 Denard Robinson WR Michigan 5 78 Kyle Long OT Oregon 2 34 Kenjon Barner RB Oregon 4 52 Jon Bostic ILB Florida 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texansshax (talkcontribs) 17:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The 2013 NFL draft doesn't take place until next month. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Cape Hill hoaxers

...are back, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackspindee2001. Last year you were able to block an IP - any chance of doing that again? Also, perhaps you could check out JarryMediaCo (talk · contribs), no edits yet but created 14 March, just before this new crop of hoaxes, which are about shows supposed to be shown on "Jarry Channel". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I have decided JarryMediaCo quacks loudly enough to block anyway; but I'd still like an IP block if that's feasible. Do you know how long the last IP block was for? Their last activity was in September, and I wondered how soon they restarted after the block expired. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
They have acquired a new IP address, but the last block on the previous IP was for three months, and I can't see any recent activity from that IP. The rest of my results have been posted to the SPI. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Quite a sock-drawer! JohnCD (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

SPI report

I'm assuming that because you found an editor I didn't report you looked for sleepers, so I'm not sure if I should report User:Zahid2005. I'm fairly certain it's either a sock or a meat puppet. The user name follows a similar format (a four-digit year after a name), and their first edits on March 20, 2013, were to Datatune and the AfD. Any suggestions on what to do? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That user is editing from a different continent than the accounts at the SPI, so they're probably not the same person, but meatpuppetry can't be ruled out, of course. Unfortunately, I'm pressed for time at the moment, and I'm about to be offline for a couple of days, so if you think that a more detailed investigation is called for, please feel free to start another SPI. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


Pretty pathetic, eh? Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello, you blocked OKCupidShrew and Dooberstein for socking. Is there an older sockmaster? I ask because it seems fairly obvious that Nableeezy (talk · contribs) (already blocked for the flattering username) and the currently unblocked accounts Tyrion12 (talk · contribs) and Srs_alt (talk · contribs) are the same as OKCupidShrew/Dooberstein. Not sure which username to open the SPI under. Thanks, nableezy - 15:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know who it might be, and every avenue I've looked down has ended up at a dead end. I blocked the first two because they matched NavierStoked (talk · contribs), who was already blocked for vandalism. These latest accounts are also a match, so I blocked them as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
All right, thanks. Ill file future reports under NavierStoked. nableezy - 18:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Socks

Yikes ... the ones I interacted with were just the tip of the iceberg, then! Thanks for letting me know. Graham87 01:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and topic bans

Hi, Thanks for doing the Humanpublic check. As I said on the SPI, I had forgotten about the IP. But I think it should probably be noted somewhere for them that the topic ban for Humanpublic extends to his puppets of course, so after a month Minorview would be subject to it, as well as future puppets, if any. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing. As I understand it, though, the rules are very clear. All blocks, topic bans and other restrictions apply to persons, not accounts. So after the one month block of Minorview is over, Minorview is still indefinitely banned from editing anything related to religion, as that was the ban imposed on Humanpublic.Jeppiz (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, topic bans apply to the editor, not the account, as do site bans and blocks. That being said, I am not familiar with the details of their topic ban and only looked at the accounts with respect to the sockpuppetry. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Humanpublic was topic banned from religion around ten days ago [5]. He has appealed the ban at ARBCOM with no success; nine arbitrators against, and none in favor. [6].Jeppiz (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

One more sock of User:Ground Zeroes editor

I think this diff speaks for itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that that's a pretty blatant admission. Blocked for obvious block evasion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift action. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For laundering the socks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


When you declined an unblock at Piggy58 (talk · contribs) in March you noted that the account was probably a sock of Sridhar100. Could this also be the case for Alexander585 (talk · contribs), who has been blanking Army of the Mughal Empire in a similar manner to Piggy? Is it worth pursuing at SPI, if only for logging purposes? - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. While they're not an exact match, the totality of the evidence convinces me. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem, although I don't really know the patterns. Meanwhile, back at Pnranjith, an SPI for which you CU'd yesterday, I rather think that we may be revisiting it before too long. Someone has just commented at Talk:Ezhava and seems to know what socking is + how to link to WP:PA despite claiming to be a new user. Ho hum. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they know about socking alright. The account is an exact match to the account that filed the SPI against you and is now blocked. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that we could be playing whack-a-mole for a while yet. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

CU request

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lui2021 has a new report: it's a duck with a megaphone (its actions are well described by peoples' months-old comments in this SPI's archives, plus the obvious name), and my next action after leaving you this note will be to block the subject of the new report. However, would you be willing to run a CU on the account to find sleepers? Talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the SPI clerks or CUs saw the case until now because the case status tag was missing along with the rest of the formatting, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Anyway, I decided to run the check, but didn't see any other accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I only found it because PlatinumStar came to me directly to ask why nobody was paying attention, so I spent a little time explaining that he had to use the standard template, or nobody would notice. There are numerous other accounts with similar names, and this guy has a habit of picking names similar to his old socks, so it's good to know that there aren't (currently) any others out there. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Questioned CU report

Hello, DoRD department. You made a checkuser report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minorview/Archive. One of the accounts involved is now questioning your conclusions, at User talk:Minorview. Could you have a look at it? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, I only just now made the connection between your current and previous usernames... somehow I had the idea that you were named for a lexicographical error... Yunshui  09:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen the CU report, of course, but already by WP:QUACK, I've suspected the two are the same. This overview is rather revealing [7]. Besides, Minorview's protestations are identical in tone and style to the ones Humanpublic has always been making.Jeppiz (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
JBW, I have made redundant checks on those accounts, and the evidence is perfectly clear: All three accounts named in the report, who all happen to edit in the same topic area, have used the same device from the same IP address. They're certainly free to file a second unblock request in the hopes that another CU takes a look, but I don't see how their conclusion would turn out differently.—DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. In fact, since I posted the above message, I have seen more evidence, which leaves me in no doubt whatever about the sockpuppetry. However, having such an unambiguous confirmation from you is yet one more confirmation. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yunshui, yeah I actually had not heard of the density thing until after I had my account renamed almost a year ago. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I just don't have time to participate in this too much, but I think you need to address some the points made on Minorview's Talk page. Is it true that Minorview and Humanpublic made edits within an hour of each other from IPs located a hundred miles apart? Is it true that Minorview's involvement in this issue only began after the numerous dramas on ANI (and AN) that called the community's attention to it? Is it true that the same IP they used was last used by Minorview in February, and it is a shared comnputer at a state university? Strangesad (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you don't have time to participate in this, but found the time to start a thread at WP:AN about the it. If I see something in the thread that needs my input, I will respond there. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Checkuser Barnstar Hires.png The Checkuser's Barnstar
For keeping Wikipedia free of socks! I reported some socks the past few days (here and here) and you are always blocking them quickly and efficiently. Keep up the good CU work! -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate SPI

I created an SPI just now not knowing that one of the users had already been identified and reported separately. Given that you just blocked one of the users involved you might also want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imaginationaaaa‎‎. Thanks in advance. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I just replied to a similar request at WT:SPICLERK and am in the process of posting my cu results. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy intervention. Roger and out. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual again

Martin_Blake_III (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))

Can we have the Syrian civil war page semi protected? Sopher99 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is ChronicalUsual, and I have blocked the account accordingly. As for page protection, please request it through the usual channels. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


This guy Horatio Snickers (talk · contribs) has a familiar M.O. but I'm not sure if it's Timothyhere (talk · contribs) or Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) or what. But if it's one of those, he's probably sprouted a new sockfarm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not Timothy, who I'm all too familiar with, and based on their location, I don't think it's BH2, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, then, we'll just wait until he paints himself into a corner... as most socks eventually do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And this: Philafrenzy (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible Sock

You know what to do. Sopher99 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

ErBabas (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
InayaKuzbari (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
ChronicalUsual (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))

My apologies - I had very little time here the last couple of days, so I haven't had a chance to look at these. Since the suspects seem to be showing up frequently, I'd prefer that you file a case so that we can keep everything in one place. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


Your confusion over an odd unblock request can likely be explained here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Consider me self-trouted and thanks for letting me know. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
That wasn't trout worthy. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Then renominate it for deletion

The consensus was clearly delete--Penssail (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachchan family--Penssail (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Go read WP:AFD as I suggested here, and stop your disruptive editing, please. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


(TalkBack)...for the IPBE. Left you a note on my talk page. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Eagleburas SPI

Hi. Fair criticism at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eagleburas about insufficient detail. For what it may be worth, I've added a description of the incident, along with four diffs (one from each of the IP's and the account). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich, that helps a lot. It also would have been helpful if the filing party had provided that info rather than waiting for a clerk to do it for them. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Regarding this SPI, I'm tempted to indef the reporter as an account operated my multiple individuals. I think it's pretty clear whoever's editing from that account has a COI. What do you think? Basalisk inspect damageberate 12:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what they say to my query. But, yeah, there is almost certainly some COI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


I just want to stop the company, who exploits russian & ukraine girls, involving them into nothing more than "virtual prostitution", from using wikipedia as their personal advertisement platform. My edits are my alone, and I've already explained to Black Kite, that "we" was an error of my friend, who is translating my edits, since my English is not qualify for high standards. (She doesn't have a wikipedia account and doesn't do any edits) Also please look to: - all dating sites are the same!.. Alexis418 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Teen Beach Movie

Is this who I think it is? No vandal edits yet, but the name is awfully suspicious. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it doesn't appear to be him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work at ACC. —cyberpower ChatOnline 21:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


Checkuser Barnstar Hires.png The Checkuser's Barnstar
DeltaQuad informed of the recent work you have done replacing him as he is currently not able to perform administrative nor CheckUser duties. In light of this and the work you do for ACC, I really have to thank you for your work. I rarely come across users who do such work purely because they want and go the extra mile in order to achieve it. I thank you for the work you do and how you keep the encyclopaedia and ACC running (in effect). Take care! John F. Lewis (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


I just blocked Bogsqueen. Time to get to work, DoRD! Drmies (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey...yeah, that's him alright. I reblocked four ranges he has used to create his accounts. Thanks for letting me know! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, another one for you. m.o.p 20:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I knew it was--I just asking if you wanted some mango. It's delicious, you know, and we could all do with the valuable nutrients and fiber it contents. I suppose that's what keeps Mangoeater in such good shape, this healthy lifestyle. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You end up all sticky. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Biased POV edits

Dear DoRD, A1. I have been participating on Wikipedia for a few years (my request for Reviewer satus was approved by you in 2010). However, besides fixing language and content errors, I don't do much more and never got too involved with policies etc. A2. This means that it takes me forever to find out where to find the necessary information, inlcuding scripts to report incidents and people if necessary. Which is why I am writing to you. B1. There is an editor going round adding to a number of articles (see Karachi) a statement about "Hindus migrating out of Pakistan, and Muslims fleeing pogroms (often spellt by this editor as pogram) and genocide in India. In the past few days, another editor and I have deleted the references to pograms but he reverts the edits. I have no problem with the use of strong terms to refer to what happened in 1947, but cannot agree with the distorted view that people left Pakistan peacefully, while others fled India to escape massacres. A quick glance at a number of articles - ethnic cleansing; genocides in history, pogram, etc. do not list the 1947 population exchange that followed the partition as a pogram or genocide. Other then 1947 per se, these articles actually reveal that a number of massacres have been carried by Pakistan(is), and not a single case of massacres against them. B2. Please advise on a course of action or take any steps you'd deem appropriate. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've been busy with other things today. However, it looks like you got some good advice from Drmies, so I'll leave it there. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, DoRD, I have contacted the India editors. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Further to this post I left on Dennis Brown's talk page, I was wondering if you could help out? Thanks Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nearly everything I know about IPv4, IPv6 and networking in general are things that I've picked up various places over the years. The dynamic vs static IP issue, for example, is mostly based on my experience with various ISPs. There are some good free resources available, but you'll have to sort through some Google results to find them. You might have a look at our relevant articles as a starting point. And, to address part of your question to Dennis: While some SPI clerking requires more advanced technical knowledge, most is just plain old detective work sifting through diffs. If you don't feel comfortable with a particular case, go on to another one. Unfortunately, we rarely have a lack of cases needing attention. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Deadly TV series socks

While you're at it, could you check out:

No edits but from context they are ducks, and I was about to block anyway, but may as well be certain. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice that I checkuser blocked those. ;) I saw one of them pop up in an edit filter and ran a check. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I just found a User:Mega Delta (TV Series) who created a userspace draft of that same name a day ago. Looks like another sock preparing a fake upcoming series. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Zzzzzap. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Bagged... and tagged. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
And it looks like Nawlin got the other account on that IP, Mega Guardian (TV Series). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
And then there's User:Heavy Duty (TV Series). Any socks on that one? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That one is stale. However, looking back at the IP, Mega Delta and Mega Guardian are not who we think it is. We're being trolled, and The Deadly TV Series is the victim of an apparent joe job here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Taking a wild guess I'd put Mario96 into consideration. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Then again, the deleted versions of these pages look a lot more sophisticated than The Deadly's creations, so perhaps it's just a coincidence. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that does look like a possibility. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


DxRD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). See deleted contributions, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. I'll take a look once I'm back to my computer. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this isn't the first time he's tried to impersonate my account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NestleNW911 broken template

Howdy! I recently created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NestleNW911, but something appears to be wrong with the report. The code is showing and I can't find it on the list of sock investigations. I can't figure it out and was wondering if you had the time to see what I did wrong. I really appreciate the time, Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The {{subst:SPI report}} template is refusing to substitute. I'm certain that it's something within the |evidence= parameter, and the most likely candidate is the bulleted list. I suggest that you take out that list, save it, paste the list back in and re-save. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It's all fixed up now thanks to Legoktm. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you everyone.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson

Paul Bedson has created another sock. See here. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to have been dealt with while I was out of pocket. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

CheckUser activity

Hello again. According to this page you performed about 1,350 CheckUser checks in April. Looking at your blocking log[8], however, it seems you only performed around 900 checkuser blocks in the same period. Per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CHECK, could you please explain why there is such a large discrepancy? Many thanks for your attention. --Surturz (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that there should be a correlation between the two numbers? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know the correlation between the two numbers. Could you please explain? --Surturz (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what one has to do with the other, so no, I can't. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no correlation between the two numbers. They measure completely different behaviors on the part of DoRD. The only thing that could be said is that as he performs more checkusers, eventually he'll perform more checkuser blocks, but because they aren't measuring the same behavior, he'll never be doing "too many" or "too few" checkuser blocks as a result of doing a certain number of checkusers. MBisanz talk 12:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:CHECK only allows checks on accounts that are suspected of sockpuppetry - no "fishing" is allowed. One check per sock implies that DoRD had a hit rate of only about 2 in 3. A third of the accounts were checked incorrectly. Now, obviously mine is an uninformed view, not being privy to how the CU tool works. So, per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CHECK, I would like DoRD to explain the discrepancy. Did he cross-check other CUs frequently last month? Did he re-check 50% of his checks? --Surturz (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Surturz, it is never as easy as 1 check per sock. (This thread about how CU works might help you understand what I, DoRD, and Matt are trying to say) One sock can have a million (obviously exaggerating, but trying to make my point) IPs that we need to look at, each being a check that we preform. DoRD actually had such a high activity rate because of my inactivity and he took on several of the things that I normally do. Also, if I check one IP from one sock, I can find anywhere from 0-several hundred accounts (yes, numbers that high have happened) that need blocking, so the 1 check would = several hundred blocks. So, there is actually no correlation between the two numbers. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I'm sorry, but you have made a number of incorrect assumptions, and there really is no "discrepancy" to explain. Policy doesn't say that CheckUser can only be used on sockpuppet suspects. Nowhere does it say that one check = one account, or one check yields one IP address or that every check should result in exactly one block. One sockpuppet investigation might require one or two checks while another may require a dozen or more checks. A single spambot check may result in dozens of blocks. So, please read the global and local CheckUser policies, try to understand how the CheckUser tool, Sockpuppet investigations and the Internet work, and then come ask your questions. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)