User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

please take a look at this account [1]. smells like iamtrhino. compare these two diffs: [2], [3]. or these two: [4], [5]--

20:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You know you can add to the sockpuppet case on your own, right? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have blocked both

. I can find no evidence of abuse, so would you be kind enough, please, to explain the abuse that caused you to block these accounts? I can see that the policy states:

• The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account.

Was there an overlap where two accounts were used to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or any of the other things mentioned? I'm having difficulty in seeing what made you block two apparently abandoned accounts whose contributions were wholly constructive. Thanks in advance, --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet case was opened with regards to this user, and it was confirmed that Alarbus == Blue-bottle == Portuguese == One Ton Depot. So.. that's the reason. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you mean that's it? Where's the abuse of multiple accounts? By that logic you'd be blocking Geni's sock-farm - after all they are all the same person. Or is there one rule for ArbCom candidates and another rule for ordinary editors? --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Geni openly declared his socks; Alarbus didn't. And there's a decent amount of overlap in what articles they edited. Further, they did edit around the same time. One Ton Depot edited through Nov 11, and Alarbus started on Nov 1. Alarbus was editing at the same time as Blue-bottle was, as well. Look, these accounts were confirmed by checkuser. And we have rules that say that editors should stick to one account, and should openly state when they have other accounts. Why are you getting so up in arms about this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those were me. I abandoned those after running into abusive editors. It amounts to fleeing from them, and I left those topic areas. Are there any without owners? The overlaps are mostly templates, and I think that's mostly because the new way of doing things shifted from {{

WP:HLIST and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class

). Blue-bottle was about maybe fleeing the Hemingway crowd that have found at least a dozen ways to call me a prick (and dangerously stupid). OTD made a few further edits because the article was on its way to becoming featured and needed a few fixes, and the talk overlaps you pointed at are not with anyone I had any conflict with.

I believe I encountered RexxS on Template talk:Navbox and he gets it; gets me, too. Thanks, RexxS. His point is that I've done a lot of good work here; technical stuff that will have huge value.

Have you seen

WP:HLIST (kudos, too, to User:Edokter and User:WOSlinker

, who've helped tremendously). They all would likely have good things to say about all of my contributions.

I've spent the last 24 hours autoblocked as PMoW used this IP recently (recently was two months ago!). Could you fix that, please?

This is an awful place, really. Alarbus (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing forcing you to edit here. And while you may be allowed to change your account to run away, you don't do it three times - and you definitely don't edit using those accounts concurrently. Or else we end up in situations like these. Read Wikipedia:Clean start for more on this. Just don't do this again. Oh, and I'm not going to get into an argument about the pros and cons of the community here. All I'll say is this: arguments happen, people disagree. Especially here on Wikipedia you have to learn to work constructively with others.

Anyway, I've modified the block on PMoW so autoblock is disabled. You were able to edit here, though, so things are fine then? Or something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was considering just giving-up; closed-community, and all. I have read 'clean start' which is why I moved to new topic areas. I'll leave you to your take on the arguments and disagreements, but do recommend that you find an hour and a half to view Sue's presentation. She sees the problems, and said she'll hold herself responsible if Wikipedia dies (said she'd hold others responsible, too). She also said that things are going to start moving at greater than the speed of consensus.

Thanks for clearing that bit; I was waiting for it to time-out before being able to post here. The offered unblock template included my IP, which I've no desire to make public. Alarbus (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I had to do a lot of SPI reports recently, and I realised that some things are not completely clear to me as I got some checking rejected that I think was similar to cases when it was accepted in the past, sometimes even after filing an SPI request without checking. Most importantly, the rules for (not) connecting named accounts to dynamic IPs with a non-empty contribution history who are clearly not cases of accidental logged-out editing seem to have changed, or maybe I never understood them. Which options should I consider in such cases in the future?

• Ask for checkuser as I have sometimes done before, but with the understanding that it will normally be declined to minimise the public information but is somehow helpful anyway? This could make sense depending on what non-public actions are taken in response.
• Ask for a DUCK-based action with the risk of collateral damage or incorrectly blaming the named account?
• Email the checkuser list so that action can be taken, if appropriate, without publicly connecting the IP to the account?
• File a report under the IP address while mentioning / hinting at / not mentioning the suspected named account?

Maybe it also makes a difference if part of the information has already been public, such as when connecting an editor of obvious nationality to a dynamic IP in the country's capital?

Maybe the guidance at

10:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the Wikimedia checkuser policy and the privacy policy, we just don't connect people to IPs. Your IP is considered somewhat private, so we'd be revealing personal information about people. If you suspect an account of editing as an IP as well, then list it as a case as normal - but don't ask for a checkuser. We are still more than able block them on behavioral grounds. Does that help? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Apparently I misremembered what I thought was former common practice. I'll keep this in mind from now on. Hans Adler 14:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have replied and provided clarifications explaining the validity of the case in

01:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, would you take a look at this discussion and block WölffReik (talk · contribs) indefinitely for disruption? You were involved with this user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike already blocked that account. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But only for a week. I defer to Hello and others as to whether a more drastic penalty should have been imposed. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the week is fine given the reason - this one edit. Personally I can't justify an indef block off of that, and I don't see any socking going on here either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A week to prevent further disruption at the AfD is fine. Thank you both for your attention to the matter. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have received the attack from Mr.choppers

thought that two fire trucks were introduced.

talk

) 04:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

—Commander _{(Ping me)} 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Annoyong, there has been a lot of sock-puppets at

) 15:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the account, but you could have added a new case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this: newbie - User talk:186.73.132.154 seems to actually be this editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus/Archive, apparently acting as a new account, please check into this. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi HelloAnnyong. Could you please take a look at two reports on two suspicious accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I? Much appreciated. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

[6] Thanks for combining those. I'm sorry, I didn't notice the SPI until after reporting the IP via Twinkle, because I worked out who it User:198.234.45.207 was separately from the deleted articles (after eir request on my talk), and didn't see the report/block (as it was range-block). Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could look into a new issue that seems to be cropping up here The incident was moved to the archive, but remains unresolved. I believe the IP in question has not edited in awhile, which may be why the case was archived, that or no action was taken. I'm not sure where to go from here, however I wish some action could have been taken before the case was archived. Any thoughts? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In the complaint against the Skeptics organization, you indicated that the user accounts identified in the complaint did not exist. On that basis you closed the complaint and recommended that other admins delete it.

But they do exist. So I added links in the complaint pointing to the talk pages of the accounts.

Please let me know if that clarifies.

Many thanks for your time and consideration on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclotadd (talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind also blocking IP 83.241.234.4? He's the one giving us the most headache. Thanks, --Eisfbnore ^talk 08:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And 85.165.229.124 as well please. --Eisfbnore ^talk 17:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Which edit got him/her the block? Looks good faith to me. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Need some help and guidance here. Reference to this case. As I predicted 101 Luftballons, as a clear sockpuppet of the complex, has returned and committed the same international vandalism as was committed in January on October 26, 2011 in: es, hif, ja, simple, and sv. I stumbled on this by accident and have corrected it where possible, but what can we do to prevent a repeat here? --_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 22:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you asking me? What articles are we looking at? When did this person last edit? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the answers to your questions can be found in the two links that the above user provided. But, if not enough, you can see here that two of the (at least 8) sockpuppets were already given a global lock for exactly the same cross-wiki abuse as committed by "101 Luftballons". So the above user is almost certainly right in his assumption that this is just another sockpuppet of the same person. Paul K. (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Luftballons hasn't edited since May 2011, so I'm not going to take action against an account that's seven months stale. Let me know if that changes. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.137.152.169/Archive

I simply have variable IP, this is not under my control, it automatically switches on computer startup, reboot or longer inactivity. I can't help it. I am playing strictly to the rules, as you can see from my edits. See Alprazolam, Temazepam and many others. 70.137.129.225 (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up - I appreciate your honesty. I'll keep this in mind if it comes up again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at wp:Sockpuppet investigations/41.130.91.244. Shrike (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm frustrated by your ruling because I'm convinced they are the same and I thought the extensive evidence I provided was strong—and it seemed like you did too when you asked for checkuser. Your comment "I mean yes, they do have a lot of articles in common, but there's a lot of articles that one account edited that the other did not." makes me think you did not consider all the evidence. In fact, I mentioned this pattern as support for Otto being a single purpose account, which would support it being a sock. Would you please consider asking other clerks to comment instead of assuming meaning from their silence? I think it's likely that the reason for inactivity is the amount of evidence. I understand that clerks must be busy and do not want to spend much time on something like this, but this editor has driven away editors from an important topic (plastic surgery) that does not have much activity to begin with.--Taylornate (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that the holidays are over I'd really appreciate a response.--Taylornate (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Otto Placik (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since the case was opened. The account is stale as far as I'm concerned, so I'm not going to take action against it. The case is closed and archived, and no other clerks cared to comment on it. Also keep in mind that sockpuppet cases are not meant to be ways to circumvent edit wars or content battles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be pointless to spend effort on a stale account, but he's been around for 2.5 years—you really think he's gone because he's been inactive for a couple weeks? I'm not trying to circumvent anything, I firmly believe these are the same person and that the evidence is strong. What exactly does your action mean? Can the case be reopened at some point? Can I ask another clerk to comment on it?--Taylornate (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If the account becomes active again, you can relist and give more evidence. As it stands now, there's not really any reason to reopen. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about that... I didn't realize that I put it down incorrectly and am about to change it right now. Van Gulik (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sierra McCormick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The-Pope (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was the entry for Bahamas Habitat deleted?

Stephen W. Merritt Treasurer Bahamas Habitat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.11.142 (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was Bahamas Habitat deleted on 11-05-2011?

I have never heard of a Meghan.reilly.

Thank you,

Steve Merritt

Treasurer

Bahamas Habitat ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywagon5 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Still working on the vertical learning curve of speaking in Wiki.

Still trying to figure out why the entry was deleted. I have never heard of a Meghan.reilly.

Please let me know what is the next step to getting the article reinstated.

Thanks,

Steve Merritt ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywagon5 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The case hasn't been closed yet, but 79.180.108.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same guy.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I marked the a sockpuppet empty category for deletion here . This is nothing against you personally, but I really don't agree with that template being used because its empty and a CheckUser confirmed these suspected sockpuppets into confirmed. If you don't agree with me you can undo the change. Thank you for the help! --Katarighe (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine - I deleted the category. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I have a request; I'm interested in helping out in the administrative tasks on wikipedia, and in particular I'd like to help with clerking at SPI. I don't have a lot of experience, but I'm a fast learner and would really enjoy helping out in the long run. I noticed that you're one of the current clerks and was wondering if you'd consider taking me on as a trainee? Just for the record, I've also asked

05:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Honestly I don't think you have enough experience on Wikipedia right now. Less than 2000 edits is a little low for me. When you've got some more experience I'd be happy to consider you again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I won't ask you for a number as I feel edit counts can be misleading, but given my current level of activity, how much time do you feel would be necessary for me to gain the appropriate experience? And is there anything I can do to assist at SPI in general at a lower level which would help me learn the ropes?

_berate

05:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all of our clerks are admins, so for us to consider a non-admin clerk would be a big step. More is better in this case. As to low-level stuff, I'm not sure there's really all that much that you could assist with... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your help anyway. I hope this didn't seem spurious, one doesn't get if one doesn't ask I guess! I'm sure I'll come crawling back at some point. Regards

_berate

05:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to check with you on the above referenced SPI. While you blocked the puppet, the master remains free to edit, lacking even a notification on his profile that he violated the sockpuppet policy. Was the decision not to block the master intentional? Or merely an oversight? If intentional, can you let me know what your thoughts are on this? I appreciate your help. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It was an intentional decision. It was the account's first time socking, and it's infrequent and rare enough that I don't see much reason in blocking the master. Relist if it happens again, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a pro-NYC vandal on the San Francisco Chinatown who's been making changes and re-igniting SF vs. NYC Chinatown war (i.e. SF one of the largest, NYC THE LARGEST). It looks like it might be Thmc1, as user is not logged in & making edits w/IP address. WOULD LIKE TO REWUEST YOU INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION. He is citing biased magazine articles as his sources, even though the sources citing the SF Chinatown page as largest are factually researched from the US Census Bureau(i.e. city-data.com, which has data for all communities in the US). His other pro-NY edits to the SF Chinatown page are also factually incorrect, and he's even assusing other editors undoing his edits of bing vandals. Please expedite this mater ASAP.

Update: I forgot to mention that the IP address of the user making the edits is 96.242.217.91. After looking throuhg Thmc1's block log I found that this is the very same IP that an investigation was opened on sometime ago. So, I guess I'm not the only here who thinks it might be Thmc1 trying to sneak his way back onto WiKi. I WOULD ALSO ADVISE THAT YOU PLACE A SPECIAL LOCK ON the Chinatown, San Francisco page so that only authorized can make edits, and the changes take effect after being checked upon by other users.

HanJinwu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Some of his more recent edits to the "Chinatown, San Francisco" page include changing the wording of the HighBinder Tong Wars section, inserting "supposedly" a few times because he believes that such events never occured. These events, on th contrary, have been well-documented by Chinatown historians, in books, tv documentaries, and is even a main feaure at the city's Chinese Historical Society. He's obviously trying to downplay the historical importance of SF Chinatown vs. Manhattan's — Preceding unsigned comment added by HanJinwu (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Annyong,

Another obvious HOOTmag/Bluesurfers sock [7], User:Purpleflights. Note the username and single-purposeness on the account, namely

) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Then open a case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiftaan is Lagoo sab. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1#23 December 2011. Mar4d (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You really expect me to block that account just on your whim? Open a case and give your evidence, and we can discuss it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 07:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but please do read the recent comments on that page. Mar4d (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, this Mar4d is a confirmed sock [8] of User:Strider11, who has been using many socks to edit Pakistani pages the same way Mar4d is doing now. He claims to be based in Pakistan but now he has admitted that he's in Australia [9], where Strider11 is. I believe that Mar4d did this so that others don't connect him to the banned Strider11.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already given my reasons, there's no need for you to start your rant all over again on talk pages. Let HelloAnnyong read the page and decide for himself. Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You came here to rant about me first.--Kiftaan (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not use my talk page as a place to yell at each other. If you want to make an accusation, open an SPI case. I've said that like fifteen times... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why have you archived the case, when it hasn't been solved yet? There's another user, Ian.thomson, who's also started a latest thread at Kiftaan's talk page on this controversy. He's opened a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The user who cried sock. Mar4d (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hi HA, as noted below, I've blocked someone based on all this, the ANI and the SPIs +
  (t) (e)
  18:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

iamtrhino again

here is yet another sock User:ShanuAvtararit. i couldn't file a report as the sock investigation page of iamthrino is protected.-- altetendekrabbe  12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, since you are the admin who responded to this case can you take a look at the comments that were placed there after your actioning of the case. Some editor, who I've never interacted with, is alleging me to be a sock of some editor I don't know

) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Adding a suspected sock tag is not vandalism. I suspect that you are a sleeper sock of Ironboy11 and an admin will check this in the SPI.
2. You share alot of similarities with Ironboy11, and it may turn out that you are also behind other socks i.e. September88 (talk · contribs). Let's face it, there appears to be a big Sock Party going on in the Indian/Pakistani pages. The history of "Pakistan" shows that after Ironboy11 was indef-blocked new socks came to continue Ironboy11's edits and you came a month after him.[10] In fact, that article was edited mostly by socks [11] after socks [12] after socks.[13] It clearly means that a banned editor (or editors) is using new socks to edit the same page now.
3. A lot of overlaps between you and Ironboy11. [14] You began editing in October 2011 [15], just after Ironboy11 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked. Now you took over his edits on the same pages (i.e. [16]).
4. You and Mar4d are also
   Meat puppeting.--Kiftaan (talk
   ) 13:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi HA, as noted above, I've blocked someone based on all this, the ANI and the SPIs +
  (t) (e)
  18:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mrpontiac1

Sorry about that, but it was

talk

) 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I left an explanation at the case page, and I ask you please to reconsider your decition. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Added additional comments here. Calabe1992 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Hi! Care to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ip claiming to be LiteralKa? Cheers! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm blocked in 3 minutes. That was fast. Never mind. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poeticbent/Archive, what was it, exactly, that Cezary Barylka was blocked for? Pre-emtpive clarification: if he was blocked for disruption from another account, could you clearly explain what account, and what disruption? Thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Cezary was confirmed by checkuser as being the same as A. Kupicki (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked as a confirmed sock of Poeticbent. In other words, it's Poeticbent further evading their block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Right. But you did not answer my question. Can you tell me what is it that Poeticbent did, and you are enforcing by block? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Poeticbent was blocked for abusing multiple accounts; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Poeticbent. I'm not getting into this argument with you; you previously had it out with Fut Perf on here. Take it up with Fut Perf if you have an issue. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that if FP would say he sees no grounds for blocking Poeticbent, you would be ok with unblocking CB, yes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then, if you support the block, as a blocking admin you have the responsibility to justify it. Let me ask again: what is the justification of Poeticbent's block? Based on the link you provided me, I see he has operated several accounts, but I see no indication of any disruption, and looking at

WP:SOCK, I see there are situations in which this is allowed. I kindly ask you to tell me how was Poeticbent abusing his socks. As an admin who blocked the latest one, an account that was not disruptive in any shape or form, but was blocked, in your own words, solely based on the connection with Poeticbent, I'd assume that you would know what was the original disruption that caused that editor to be banned from this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me}

00:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI case

I invite you to another SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AramaeanSyriac. Shmayo (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts on SPI pages, although I do hope our friend will stop in 2012. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks, on more flimsy evidence, such as use of files contributed at wiki commons, and their mutual puppeteering activities, that User:Uobquetta may be a new account of the banned sockpuppeteer User:Pd1 uob. Their commons contribs are: Pd1_uob and Uobquetta. I can't see the deleted contibutions of Uobquetta on en wiki to confirm this suspicion. I'd have added this to the SPI but it's now closed. Advice? Thanks.

) 12:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting find. There's no overlap in their deleted contributions, but there's one little thing that makes me mildly suspicious. The evidence isn't really strong enough to block, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! When you have a few minutes, please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish#Help Needed. Something's not quite right, but I'm at a loss to make sense of it all. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that 75.85.170.133 is Edgeform. What I'm not sure about is who 66.27.48.50 is. Both IPs geolocate to San Diego, so I can't help but wonder if they're both Edgeform - which, admittedly, would be weird. I've blocked the 75 IP for a week for block evasion, and I've blocked the other IP for a potentially outing edit summary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. A couple of things more:

• There's a similar edit summary at Mirror neuron that also needs to be hidden.
• Aside from the technical block evasion by posting on my user talk, I tend to think that Edgeform/75.85.170.133 was actually reaching out to me in good faith, and may have been incorrectly blocked as a result of the SP investigation. Here's some background. The page where the issues arose is a BLP of a notable scientist in San Diego, some of whose research is about the causes of autism. There is also, separately from anything the BLP subject does, a lot of fringe science about the causes of autism, that attracts a certain amount of POV-driven disruptive editing. It's possible that Neurorel/Edgeform are part of that disruption, but also possible that they are editing in good faith: the DUCK/behavioral aspects are very ambiguous. Ever since Edgeform's SPI block, Neurorel has been editing as normal, as though unaware of the block. Whoever 66.27.48.50 is, they would have to be a rather stupid sock to put up those edit summaries if they wanted to remain undetected. It was like saying, look at me, I'm socking. Yet, if they are all one person, Neurorel is smart enough not to let on, and Edgeform's postings on my talk are smart enough to display familiarity with edit histories. None of that fits with the IP edit summary. Now add to this that there are probably lab group members and others in San Diego who don't like seeing certain edits about the BLP. Perhaps, 66.27.48.50 was someone clumsily trying to get Neurorel and Edgeform blocked. I don't know. I feel as though just geolocating to San Diego may not tell us enough. It's a mess, and I'm not confident of anything, but my gut says to question the Edgeform block.
• On the other hand, I guess Edgeform could be a sock of Neurorel, and the IP 66.27.48.50 was someone else trying to out them, in which case only now did Neurorel discover the block of the Edgeform account.

What do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, uhh... I don't know. Their blocks are up in a few days, so I guess we'll see what happens after? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First, let me suggest hiding that edit summary at Mirror neuron, an edit summary just like the other one. Aside from that, I guess we could see whether Neurorel makes any edits while the IP addresses are blocked. I'm concerned, though, that the block of the Edgeform IP prevents what might be a good faith attempt to clear up a mistaken block (contacting me at my user talk and being entirely open about who they are doesn't really seem to me to be block evasion). What do you think of asking the two checkusers who took part in the SPIs (Tiptoety and WilliamH) to look at our discussion here and see if they have any suggestions? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I missed that other revision. Anyway, are you challenging whether Neurorel == Edgeform? They're almost certainly the same based on behavior, and the CU results reflect that. Accounts that sock don't get a pass just because they may have good data or whatever. If they are the same then Neurorel's down to one account; if they're not the same, then Edgeform should follow standard procedure and ask for an unblock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that what you say makes sense. Please understand that I was never arguing for an unblock based on edit quality, only based on my increasingly strong conviction that 66.27.48.50 was neither of the named accounts, and was acting in bad faith to out them and get them blocked. But you make a very sensible and persuasive argument that this does not change the SPI decision. I'm going to leave a message at 75.85.170.133's talk telling them that the Edgeform account must go through the process of requesting an unblock if they maintain that they are not Neurorel, and that there is nothing more that I am able to do for them; instead, they will need to convince an administrator that no socking took place. Thanks again for the time and thought that you put into this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi HelloAnnyong, you recently closed this SPI investigation. It's a strange situation, but I think you might have overlooked the point here by excusing the behavior of Basil Rock. It wasn't just a username issue. This is a person who was blocked for their username, so they changed usernames, then separately recreated the blocked username and edited with both accounts simultaneously. How is this not the very definition of sock puppetry? Can you take another look at it? Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've responded there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask two questions in relation to

) 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the note at the top of my talk page? Go to

WP:SPI, put HenryVIIIyes as the master in the box in the middle, and follow the instructions. You can put anyone you want there - duck socks, regular accounts, whatever. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

new sockpuppet for same Atlanta user

Hi, the abusive user in Atlanta is editing with a new sockpuppet Keizers (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User:220.255.1.141 this was very recent (a few hours ago) -- it is what spurred the SPI. Thanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh what? What case is this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As I have already notified your fellow clerk, there has been no progress in this sockpuppet investigation for a couple of days and it has become a distraction from other more serious issues I'm dealing with. Could you please take a look? Thanks.--Andriabenia (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Per this: if it is SRQ (which I am utterly convinced it is), then the only real conflict between the banned editor vs. either of the unbanned "Doc" editors is why SRQ cannot understand why they were banned to begin with. As usual, they are ferreted out because of their harassment of other users and general incompetence as an editor on a collaborative project. The more I look at this new account's edits, the more diffs I can provide. Doc talk 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, please go ahead and add some of those diffs to the SPI case. Right now there's a discussion going about the need for more evidence, so the more the better (without being so much that it goes into TLDR). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I popped one in here (regarding the fact that SRQ is the #2 editor on that tiny article with 18 edits and Lhb1239 already has 5) in fear that I was already bloating the report. I tend to like diffs :) I'll keep gathering the evidence, and those diffs will only add to the strength of my accusation. I'll try not to get too preachy, but I am quite familiar with this case. Cheers :> Doc talk 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've added a ton more evidence to the SPI, and I have looked very hard to exclude SRQ as being Lhb1239, as I really would hate to be wrong about something like this. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that these accounts are operated by the same user - none. Some of the most obvious points:

• Being from not only Washington state, but the exact same region that SRQ is from.
• Stalking DocOfSoc with not only straight reverts and alterations[17][18] on articles that she blatantly followed DOS to, but the massive "rewriting" of articles DOS had been working on[19][20] (also, with no other logical conclusion as to how they got there if they weren't actively stalking DOS).
• Appearing at extremely obscure articles that SRQ is either the #1 or #2 contributor to.[21][22][23][24][25][26] SRQ, like most editors, watchlisted the pages she contributed to and fought vandalism attempts against them. Even if Lhb1239 made one vandalism revert on each page, the odds of them watchlisting all of these small pages, or randomly coming across them in vandalism patrols, and not being SRQ are absolutely beyond remote.
• A complete lack of understanding of policy, especially EW - so much so that they have been blocked twice for edit-warring themselves and have initiated 1 successful vs. 7 failed reports against others,[27] coupled with general nastiness and condescension to most of the editors she has encountered on talk pages (and through her brand of "BRRD").
• The hypocrisy. How does one put "I'm not fond of aggressive discussion" as the third tenet of their user page, yet come off with remarks like this? Not exactly the "warm and fuzzy" editor they claim to be after all - just like SRQ. She has always denied socking, yet the evidence shows that to be a lie in the past, and a lie right now.
• The "point-by-point" responses pointed out in the SPI. This is classic SRQ, and I can't even remember another editor using this tactic to dismiss the arguments of another they way she does.

I could go on for awhile, but hopefully you can see that there is no other logical conclusion as to who this actually is. The behavior never changes, only the account names. There is no overlap between any of the confirmed or suspected socks of SRQ that I can find. DocOfSoc did not ask to be followed around and reverted by this banned editor, and neither did the others who are being revealed as having extremely unpleasant discourse with this person, so the escalation is completely on the banned editor's part. I'm sure the CU evidence on SRQ is stale, we know she hops around on wireless IPs and the like, and we already have Lhb1239 admitting that they are from the northern Puget Sound area of Washington. The reason she hasn't even responded to the SPI report so far when she has been so diligent about maintaining "her" talk page is because she knows she has been busted. I know I'd be furious if someone accused me of being a sock when I really wasn't - wouldn't most? Whether another clerk takes up your offer to chime in, or if it takes a month to close it: it is her. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent activity was 2011-12-16 -- just three weeks ago. Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you didn't list that IP on the page, so I didn't know to check it. Anyway, aside from that IP there's been nothing from anyone related to that account, so there isn't anything to act on. None of the other accounts are blocked or anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Having read your message, I looked through all the socks of Satt 2. I decided to collapse me comments into a box and add two further comments, after looking at all the contributions of the socks. Andriabenia thinks they can remove my collapse boxes and has been edit warring over that. Please could you advise them that they have no right to tamper with my edits in this way. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I should be limited to standard layout , so should Mathsci. I do not want to look like I'm talking to myself.--Andriabenia (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you're talking to yourself - it looks like Mathsci wrote a lot and was just condensing their notes. Seriously, leave it alone - do you really want to be blocked for edit warring on a case where you're suspected of being a sock? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont want to be blocked but its unfair that he gets to use special features.--Andriabenia (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to display my evidence in a readable way. In this case it was only HelloAnnyong's comment today that made me aware of how many very recent sockpuppets of Satt 2 there have been. I spent over 1 1/2 hours reviewing the editing of all the listed sockpuppets accounts and that made me decide on a format change. I have not removed any content (I could if I wished) and it's easy enough to read the evidence. I should not have been placed in the position where I have no control over what I add, when it is within the normal editing framework. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of you, just leave the damn case alone for now. Seriously. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the only thing going on at the moment, unfortunately. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andriabenia (1) reported by User:Mathsci (Result: ) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andriabenia (2) reported by User:Mathsci (Result: ). But I have nothing more to add at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

is truly great, but 50 edits say almost nothing and don't allow to set any reasonable time for a block. If possible, please extend it to at least 200. Pagination is fine. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, it does. Try the 'Next set' link under the table. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it does :-) Sorry, I looked at some range with <500 contribs! Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello HelloAnnyong - Happy New Year. I noticed this SPI and was wondering if it might be better to leave it open for a full checkuser, as there are other accounts that appear similar to me (edit similar AFDs).  7  08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can give sufficient evidence to warrant a look at those other accounts, or to show that there's reason to suspect other accounts are active, then do so on the page and we can take a look. As it stands, though, there's not much reason. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how you'd think Eric444 was related to this. Eric444 is a good faith contributor who's been here since 2007. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly it was these two edits. That's not really enough to go on, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The only reason Eric444 removed the info is because it was cited to Twitter accounts at the time. Eric444's edit summary even cites

WP:V. It's clear that Eric444 was removing it in good faith. TyneGRPR et al. are removing it now that a reputable source has been added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?}

) 02:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why I didn't act on anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see.[28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You can safely ignore the ANI discussion. It was closed because I posted it in the wrong venue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The "outing" IP is back, at another IP address. Please see [29] and [30]. I guess you need to block that one too, and hide those edit summaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up. This has been taken care of. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have an investigation open where a username and an IP are the chief concern. I listed potential older socks to reference a pattern (and because the form was set up that way), however it made it more difficult to "keep it simple." Is there anyway to do a CheckUser if the master is using the same anonymous IP? What about for potential "sleepers"? And is there anything than can be done to speed this process along? Thanks so much. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• What wiki-term best describes a user who obsessively watches, reverts, & harasses users on the same pages? Just a terminology question. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • • That'd be stalking. As to your case: no, CU will not connect an IP to an account. Since the other two accounts you listed on that case are very stale, there's nothing that a CU would do there; it all has to be judged based on evidence. You filed your case one day ago, so have a little patience - the clerks don't all sit around waiting for cases to come up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I lost an account due to move / death in the family, & have more than "mere 76" edits. Not concerned about "
        boomerang" but thanks for the "heads up." ThomasC.Wolfe (talk
        ) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Apologies, but my account didn't notify me you responded. You failed to put a block on the
          warrior, and a sneaky one. I was thorough: I don't like to see this, and because I really don't want to have to file another investigation. Respectfully. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk
          ) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Which I wanted to add, that for a random university IP, seems odd that out of 500+ reverts, that there are no edits involving academic subjects (science, nature, biology, etc.), just the same exact reverts / trolling of the same username, who is now leaving annoying, deceptive messages on my talk page. Thanks again. 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasC.Wolfe (talk • contribs)
            • No, I didn't fail to do any of that. You seem to have missed the part where I question your motives. You've got less than 100 edits, yet you're going to tell me how and when to block? I can't help but think that you might be the good hand of another account. Oh, and don't threaten me with opening another case - that's not the way to get things done. If anything, you're the one who's harping on this case. And don't canvass other administrators about this, either - that's poor form. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not listing the sockmaster; I was concerned about outing. I've now listed the sockmaster and some supporting evidence; but, unfortunately, the page is still under OccamTheRazor (the alleged sockpuppet) and not PaulTheOctopus (the alleged sockmaster). I would have corrected the template, but I've never filed such a report before and I did not want to break any more conventions than I probably already have.Cumulant (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the case - take a look at that page for more. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You closed and archived an SPI case five hours after it was submitted on August 25, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AceD/Archive, and you noted, "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." See also this related discussion from your talk page. I find it a little ironic that Computer Guy 2 (talk · contribs) would file an SPI, and display his understanding of sockpuppet policy on your talk page, just one day after creating a sockpuppet of his own: Solo I Fatti (talk · contribs)

I'm not asking for your opinion on whether socking is occurring; I'm already treating that as obvious fact. The 100% overlap in edited articles between these two

accounts; the frequent signing of comments by both accounts with "In Good Faith"; identical login times and periods of no editing, etc. -- it passes the duck test with flying colors, and makes the filing of an SPI report a mere formality. I would, however, like your input on two things:

• Does this socking qualify as actionable "abusive sockpuppetry"? Commenting on an article as Computer Guy 2, then editing that same article 22 minutes later as Solo I Fatti seems deceptive to me. Starting a discussion about an article as Computer Guy 2, then three comments later arguing in that same thread, from the same POV, as Solo I Fatti, also seems deceptive.
• How long should I postpone filing this SPI so as to avoid being accused of trying "to deal with an edit war through alternative means"? ;-) You see, I've recently reverted some "Solo I Fatti" edits, and I'm now being subjected to personal attacks and other unpleasantries by him, including an accusation that I must be a sockpuppet of other editors that have also reverted his edits. Facepalm

Fun stuff. Your input, before I proceed, would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Just open the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In less than a day, Ukboxen is back as 109.123.93.228 and is still undoing all of my edits.

Is there anyway to stop him from making more and more IPs? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually TheShadowCrow should have mentioned that UkBoxen is a reincarnation of User38563 created after two heavy rangeblocks of mine (178.99.0.0/16 and 178.105.0.0/16) where most of the abuse happened. Also Vitali-golota looks like a clear case of further evasion which would then indeed add 109.123.93.228. Seems to be inclined to use any Ip available. Might be worthwhile to update the sp investigation withe main master but i wasn't sure how to do it. --

Tikiwont (talk

) 15:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've opened another case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks. --

Tikiwont (talk

) 20:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

—Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly have a look at the page for more comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Padmal has come back after a long time, and we are yet to welcome him with a bouquet.

17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Peace ;-)

Thanks to my would-be nemesis, SRQ, we got off on the wrong foot. I sincerely hope we can now have a fresh start. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Hello lol (sorry couldn't resist...sure you've seen that a million times) I am one of the many editors who watch and contribute to Circumcision and noticed you as the last admin who blocked User talk:Joe Circus. I have no issue with the block as he is clearly a puppet master but wish to make sure other users are not summarily blocked without proper compelling evidence. I'm referring to this proxy block by user:Kanonkas and subsequent label by user:jayjg. It's also true that the IP has not requested an unblock and may very well be a sock of Joe Circus but I've seen no evidence on the sock and open proxy noticeboards. I also find it curious that Kanonkas has not edited since April of last year and only 4 edits at that. What brought him out of retirement to block an open proxy and why was there no mention of this being a sock of Joe Circus? I have queried [31] Kanonkas to no avail and find communication with Jayjg pointless. I was hoping you could look into the matter or point me in the right direction or if I'm being paranoid please tell me to bugger off and I shall. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If the IP was a proxy then it was correctly blocked. Per

WP:PROXY, open proxies are not allowed on Wikipedia. If you're questioning the tagging of the IP's page, well, that's another story. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

04:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm not questioning the block but the circumstances that precipitated it and the evidence to label it a sock of Joe Circus. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how Jajyg came to that conclusion; you may want to ask them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi HelloAnnyong. Not sure if Hetoum I and Xebulon are one, but please look into this new evidence. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the Sock case I filed earlier that you closed, it would appear that the user(s) made an account (The Witer 20) and screwed around with my user page. While I tend to be understanding, I wasn't born yesterday and it doesn't seem like much of a coincidence. If you could look into this I'd appreciate it. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(

(ʞlɐʇ)

20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you look at

20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(

(ʞlɐʇ)

20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that stuff, DQ. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

hey its not my speculation its a fact, what do you know, have you even seen the show, what do you do just look around wikipedia and revert peoples knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyWarear (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi HelloAnnyong (I'm a fan of Arrested Development too),

I thought I'd get in touch with you because you protected the Sri Vikrama Rajansinha article. Unfortunately you have protected a version of the article that is politically motivated and engages in historical revisionism (Tamilian101 is attempted to claim that Kandy was a Tamilian kingdom cf. the recent conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka). I have provided information below to substantiate my claims. Please either revert the article to a version prior to the edit war or unprotect it until a more neutral version emerges.

There seems to be an unconstructive edit war over the name of this article. I think it's time the matter was resolved by an administrator. The article was previously entitled, "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy". "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" was the most common name by which the last king was known as per both Sri Lankan and European records, a perusal of books on the Kanydan period will confirm this. Yes, "Sri" is an honorific prefix, but it is also the most common name by which he was known. The prefix "Mother" appears in the wikipedia entry on "Mother Teresa", this is in accordance with MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included". Secondly, Tamilian101 has been attempting to add "Prince Kannusamy" to the king's name. Pre-coronation titles should appear in the article, but certainly not in the title of the article. Addressing a king by the lower title, "prince", is incorrect and disrespectful. The article on Queen Elizabeth does have "Princess Elizabeth" appended the the article's title for this reason. Regardless of your politics, historical revisionism is unhelpful. Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, a member of the Madurai royal family, chose the name "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" upon his coronation (aged 18), and that is the most common name by which he was known throughout his life.

Furthermore, adding the name of the king in three separate languages on the English Language version of wikipedia clutters up the page with information that it largely uninformative for the vast majority of readers. It should be noted that Sri Lanka's inhabitants at the time also included Burghers and Moors (who spoke Dutch and Arabic among other languages), listing his names in all these languages is unnecessary clutter. This is why Queen Elizabeth's name does not appear in Welsh, Gaelic or any other language on the wikipedia entry, because it is uninformative on an English language encyclopedia and adds unnecessary clutter. I have added this information the article's and Tamilian101's talk page in the hope that he would see reason, but it is clear that he is trying to engage in politically motivated historical revisionism. I stated that adding "Prince Kannusamy" (a previous and more junior title) before the actual name of the king on the image and his completely unnecessary (we don't see Princess Elizabeth preceding "Queen Elizabeth II" on her wiki entry). My revisions have all been reverted without the reasons being addressed on the talk page.

This is an important article on one of the most interesting periods of Sri Lankan history, so please let's work together to make it more informative an accessible without quibbling over unconstructive modifications. If you have the time, I would really appreciate your input on how to go about getting the article back to into it's former, more accurate, version.

Thanks 124.148.180.226 (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Computer_Guy_2/Archive

The investigation posting states, "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below." However, the investigation posting was archived before this editor was allowed to post and comment or discuss. I request permission to post my explanation to the archived investigation. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(ʞlɐʇ)

22:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The case is closed, and your account, Solo I Fatty, was blocked. Your explanation isn't going to unblock that account; neither will it remove the entry on your block log. You can explain here if you want, but there's not really any point in adding it to the case. And if you don't sockpuppet again, it's not really going to matter much. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully realize the case is closed, and my other account is fully blocked. By the way, the name was not "Fatty", but Solo I Fatti (Italian for "Just the facts"). I fully realize that my explanation won't unblock the account, nor remove the entry on my block log, nor am I asking for it to be - otherwise, I wouldn't ask. Now, you say it's not really going to matter much.... Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but it does matter to me. Posting my explanation on your talk page will, in fact, accomplish nothing. It clearly says on the investigation post. "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below.". I, as the accused, was denied that opportunity. Pursuant to advice from DeltaQuad (see the related thread), I again request permission to post my explanation on the archived investigation post, otherwise, I request to be advised of the appeal route or how it may otherwise be accomplished. Thank you for your consideration. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to appeal. The case is closed, and the accounts are blocked. What result would you want out of this aside from one of the clerks to say, "Just don't do it again?" — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for any "result" - just the opportunity to document my side of the situation. I'm not trying to excuse my action - I made an unintentional mistake, and I now realize it was a violation, nevertheless. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. As long as we're considering revisiting this SPI so as to add more documentation, which I assume would include this already attempted claim of an "unintentional mistake", then I guess I should resume typing up the evidence I've collected -- most of which never made it into the preliminary filing of that report, by the way, since I figured the case was closed and piling on more evidence wasn't necessary. There are some additional diffs that indicate intentional, not unintentional, deception; then there's my discussions with Fatti where I excuse his behavior as that of a new, inexperienced editor with just 2-dozen edits ... and he let me believe that; and the time I explained that I posted a 3RR-warning template on his talk page because he had never been warned before ... he never corrected me (I see now you've received warning templates before on this account). There's more, some of which may have to be confidentially emailed to an Admin, as it includes information that could be used to identify future socking. Also, you were never "denied the opportunity" to respond to the actions taken; the same notice that informed you of your block also informed you about how to respond if you thought there was an error -- days before the case was archived. In equally good faith, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that vitriolic attack. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, everyone stop now. Once again: this case is closed. No, you cannot add your explanation to the archive page. No, you two will not be fighting on my talk page or anywhere else. The socking is over and done. Computer guy, if you want to change your username, see

WP:CLEANSTART. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to reconsider the close of this investigation with no action taken. You say "it really does just seem like meat puppetry" as if meat puppetry is somehow not as bad as sock puppetry. Per

) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(

(ʞlɐʇ)

14:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what DQ said. I usually only block meatpuppets if it's really flagrant - something like breaking 3RR or canvassing an AFD or something. These accounts clearly are two different people, and I'm really hesitant to take action against them. As a side note, I want to point out that Talk:Dissociative identity disorder is, for lack of a better term, a huge clusterfuck. 500k in edits in less than a month? Oh boy.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That same "outing" IP has done the same thing after the block ended: [32]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. Let me know if it happens again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Austereraj is the master in a case that you recently dealt with and which is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Austereraj/Archive. The master has just returned with another crappy contribution pushing his name without good cause or sourcing. Is there a long-term solution? This type of behaviour has been going on for ages now. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you take a look at Grant Cardone and issue whatever Scientology-related notices you see fit, if any? Both editors would appear to come within Remedy 5.1. Haven't talked for awhile, hope you are fine. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi HelloAnnyong. It looks as though

07:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's clearly them. I've taken care of this case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi I've left a note at the spi but basicly what I'm after is just advice. The history has involved previous blocks for socking where the unblock request said he wasnt to use other accounts. I'm not wanting you to do anything else but I'd like to know when it's appropriate to run a check user and when not just for future if it happened again would it then be or does there need to be a lot of history. Just would like to know for the future not just for this but anything.

11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I post this correctly- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Computer_Guy_2 . I am wondering since it hasn't been reviewed, and thought maybe it was because I did not ask for a Checkuser (didn't think it was required). Thanks in advanceAceD (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your message was a bit confusing, but as I have already stated to one administrator I have no intent of even speaking with that editor again, much less engaging in any prohibited behavior. Further, no "OUTING" occured, by the letter of the policy and the spirit of it. I never posted anybody's "real name" or ANY other personal information, as defined by wikipedia. Further, even if I had, the at-best-partial-pseudonym was from a site linked and referenced on wikipedia by that editor- "unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". Moot, however, since I didn't.

Also, the SPI investigation was actually for meatpuppetry...so I don't know how effective the CheckUser tool will be. But I leave that to you guys who know best. Thanks, AceD (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One, two, three. Don't wikilawyer this one with the 'by the letter of the policy'. Pseudonym or not, you're inciting a riot. Don't do it again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think you have to 'wikilawyer' to convey that even if real information was posted here that this is the VERY EXCEPTION listed in the policy. The user is the one that linked and referenced that information, not this editor. On NUMEROUS occasions, no less. If there is some other intent in the policy that supersedes this then I suggest you (collectively, not individually) remove its explicit presence and meaning.

However, I will acknowledge your point about "inciting a riot" and recognize that it isn't the best way to go about toning down the rhetoric....in fact it likely produces quite the opposite. And even if I didn't, I have already told you I will certainly abide by your comment. AceD (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for addressing the puppets at this investigation. Query -- you didn't block the sockmaster Jigsaw, although you blocked his puppet. They worked in tandem at one of the AfDs at issue (one !voting at the Bahram AfD, the other extending the Bahram AfD unilaterally as an independent editor, presumably to give the master more time to garner support). I would have thought that the master (Jigsaw) would warrant a block for that, and as that impacts the AfD !vote, I thought I would contact you in that regard. Many thanks for your consideration. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. Here's more. It seem that in the past Jigsawnovich actively solicited support -- on iranian.com -- for her efforts to keep wp articles from being deleted at AfD. And she is doing it now, vis-a-vis the current AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And ... we appear to have another newly created SPA -- Godsnephew--claiming knowledge now of the same unpublished article at the Bahram AfD that Jigsaw at the AfD claims to have written but not yet had published. This looks like clear socking or meatpuppetry, continuing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Godsnephew is likely a meatpuppet. Has anyone warned Jigsaw about off-Wiki canvassing? If not, she probably needs to be. As for the AFD, accounts made by socks like that can probably be marked with {{

spa}}. Bahram Nouraei (rapper) isn't active enough right now to warrant protection, but let me know if it does. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My biggest concern is the ongoing AfDs, that are being impacted by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. What further can/should be said there, to flag the issue to the closing sysop, as to Jigsaw's many comments, and those of apparent socks and meats (if that is a word)? Just marking the acct with SPA is perhaps not strong enough under the circumstances, as there can be legitimate early editors (we all were one at one time), but the facts here suggest something of greater concern. I would think that given that Jig is a confirmed sockmaster, and confirmed as soliciting AfD !votes a public blog, and for indicating that she performs the service of writing wp articles, that she should be blocked as her puppet was -- am I correct? Also, if God is a likely meatpuppet, under the circumstances what is needed to have them blocked (with the appropriate entry at the ongoing AfD that they just left a comment at)? I don't think that the Bahram article should be protected -- but perhaps the AfD should be? Do we do that? Given the SPAs there, maybe that would address the issue a bit for future postings at least. Many thanks for your time -- sorry to trouble you on a weekend.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

She socked once, so an indef block based on that is a little harsh. And I'm not really one to block people for off-Wiki canvassing, though some other admins are. If she's been warned of it and continues to flagrantly do it, that's another story - but I'd need to see sufficient evidence to support a block in that case. Anyway, I've tagged the Bahram AFD with {{Not a ballot}}, so the closing admin should at least be aware of what's going on. We really only protect AFDs in extenuating circumstances, of which this is not. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Update -- God just joined the AfD as well. With a Strong Keep !vote supporting Jigsaw's position. And -- mirroring Jisaw's statement -- claiming knowledge of an as-yet-unpublished article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you couldn't do anything else in closing this but from my personal point of view it's less than satisfactory. You wrote "I don't know if it's Dingle or not". Well, I do know, and it isn't, and I said so. FL launched this SPI because they didn't like my edits to Christian Concern, and even in the SPI report FL admits that "I'd be happy to withdraw this SPI". So now I'm left with this vague insinuation hanging over me, which CU would have resolved. Not happy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well, I didn't take any action on it. Sometimes cases end like this, i.e. where no action is taken. What sort of solution would make you happy? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I was hoping for one of those friendly {{unrelated}}. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That template is only used when a checkuser has been run. Because one hasn't been done in this case, we won't use it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I realise that, and as a result I am left under a cloud of suspicion. And that's why I'm not happy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You just G5'd the article Alexander Kačaniklić created by a blocked sock. Would it be possible for you to copypaste the latest revision to my userspace, as the subject is notable, and I'd like a basis from which to re-create a properly sourced clean version. AFAIK, there wasn't any copyvio material left in it. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. See User:Struway2/Alexander Kačaniklić. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Herro prease. It looks like bot updates at SPI might have stopped until next week(?!). Please tell me I'm wrong. I realize there's a backlog, and of course I'll wait my turn for the SPI I posted. I didn't know if the post would be worthwhile in a week, though. Any advice? Should I list manually? Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Δ is on strike. Amalthea threw together a backend for us, though, so we'll still be handling the cases - the frontpage just might not update. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I was addlepated with bepuzzlement. あんがと。JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

「あんがと」とはなんだろう。「ありがとう」の俗語？ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

そう。早くて落な会話でよく聞かれる表現。もしかして茨城弁？「Thankya」とだいたい一緒かな。 JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ぜんぜん関係ないんだけど、is there any better way than MfD to resolve a pretty obvious problem like

WP:SPEEDY

criterion, just trout me with it. 突然でごめん。

That's a username violation. Take it to

WP:UAA. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

04:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

お世話になりました。Angato again! JFHJr (㊟) 04:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think

has been dropping in a bit of that, but has mainly been making good edits. Even the promotional-sounding stuff is starting to contain solid sources, so I've been able to rewrite it into something more neutral and factual.

I should add that the actions of these editors, in their latest incarnation, have drastically improved the

) 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

8digits and his/her sock Nexia asx

Just curious, since I'm unfamiliar with this process - I see that you've blocked Nexia asx as a confirmed sock of 8digits. The sock was used to deliberately circumvent 8digit's 3RR block and edit the article in question. As far as I can see, no action has been taken to either extend the block of 8digits or warn him/her about what happened. Is that standard procedure, or is something still to come? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

8digits is already blocked, but you're right, I should have left them a note. I just did that. And as for extending their block, I'm going to assume a little good faith on this one. Nexia asx is not a new account, by the way - it's been around since May 2010. If another new account shows up, list it and we'll extend 8digits' block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. It seems that you've got quite a bit of faith assuming good faith... when you're warned (twice) about reverts, violate the 3RR anyway, get blocked, and then immediately use another account you happen to have lying around to circumvent the block, it's a little hard to see how that can be unintentional. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been burned before by blocking people prematurely, so yes, I err on the side of caution. They're down to one account now, but relist if there are new accounts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please reopen

) 05:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked two of those IPs. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --

talk

) 03:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please have a look at this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon? I would appreciate your opinion, since you were involved in this case before. Regards, Grandmaster 19:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you see TNX's comment on there? I'm disinclined to block those accounts - but if someone else wants to, more power to them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand TNX's frustration, but I also see that previous socks managed to evade repeated checks, and the last bunch of socks was caught only after the 3rd CU. I really wonder how they do that. But do you think that there's nothing wrong with what's going with the article about Nagorno-Karabakh, and all the new accounts that pop up out of nowhere and join edit warring are genuine new users? Grandmaster 09:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to pass judgment on what's going on in that article. Maybe this is a better discussion for the folks at

WP:AE, since that article falls under the AA2 restriction. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Grandmaster 08:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm back on your talk page, so you know what that means: [33], [34].

I notice something slightly different this time. The IP only refers to Neurorel, not Edgeform. It seems to me that it makes zero sense that either Neurorel or Edgeform would do this. Rather, it looks like the IP realizes that Edgeform has been blocked and now is pushing to have Neurorel blocked. Of course the SPI found that they all geolocate together, and there is clearly a pattern of interest in the same subjects, but I really think that this behavioral pattern is only consistent with someone other than Neurorel or Edgeform trying to get those accounts blocked, out of some odd agenda growing out of the research areas (probably autism) associated with that San Diego lab. On this basis, I think that the SPI decision to block Edgeform needs to be re-assessed. What do you think of an unblock? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Supposing that's Edgeform making those edits, they're certainly not justifying an unblock by repeatedly outing the person. Nothing says "I want to edit again" like breaking one of Wiki's cardinal rules. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, it doesn't make sense that Edgeform would be "repeatedly outing the person" if Edgeform were a sock of Neurorel. One would have to imagine a trolling plot of monumental proportions, and that doesn't fit with what I've been seeing over time. Please don't take this the wrong way: you've been very helpful throughout this entire process, and I recognize that you have more experience with these kinds of user issues than I do. But I'm just not comfortable with letting the block stand, and I would like to get some more opinions. Therefore, I'm going to open a thread at

WP:AN, and ask for some additional eyes on the question. --Tryptofish (talk

) 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear HelloAnnyong,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you just closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalaua. Unfortunately it looks like this idiot has immediately registered a new account Ranuralip (talk · contribs). What to do about this? Should I re-open the existing SPI, or wait for it to be archived then open a new one? Or will you simply block him/her? Thanks in advance. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Check the case page; I've handled this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks for the speedy response. Keep up the good work! --Biker Biker (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some days I reported an IP used by Mackemfixer at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mackemfixer. You closed the case and block the IP. Now we have Argcontrib, a new user that continues things right were the IP left them (clearly, a block evasion), but the SPI is not archived yet. How do I report it then? Should I wait for the archive and report again then, add the new info to the page and change the status back to open, generate a new page at "Mackemfixer (second)" or something like that), or just tell you here? Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Go to

WP:SPI and list the case as you did before. It'll open a new one on that same page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

15:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the basis of the evidence I have put on the SPI page I suggest un-blocking the IP. Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

I am not Mackemfixer. Please look into this. Argcontrib (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you have a look at User talk:Savatage Gutter Ballet when you have time? They are proclaiming their innocence. The edits themselves don't appear incriminating, although I have no idea what checkuser may have revealed. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Elockid confirmed that that account was The Sisser. Still, I've relisted the SPI case to double confirm. I'd say keep an eye on that case page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks very much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Cammyayrutd, User:Cammy ayr utd1910 & User:Cammyaufc1910 There is no evidence of disruption other than recreating a deleted article on a new account but seems highly likely with editing of Ayr United article and similar names they are the same account. Others appear stale I'm assuming good faith that maybe he was looked out of the other accounts but would like to know if it should be reported fully or if there is anything i should be using to advice him.

19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The latter two accounts haven't edited in half a year. Open a case if they become active or something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

no problem that was kind of what I was hoping you would say. He's not disruptive nor do I think he will be. I just wanted to make sure by leaving it I wasnt going to cause a problem.

Wanderer

10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was just wondering if it is normal for an indefblocked username to still be manipulating his talk page under his username that is indefblocked. This makes me think such a user can also do this elsewhere. Can you check it or something? No need to get back to me at all- just dropping you a line since you indefblocked this guy.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've modified their block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure where is the appropriate page for comment.

I submitted the case for investigation after checking the history of the Anglo-Indian when

. Thankyou. Romper (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey HelloAnnyong, I just blocked IP 91.140.87.114. Can you figure out a range block? Or should I just semi-protect their favorite targets? Drmies (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be 91.140.0.0/16, but I don't think there's enough disruption to warrant it. Also consider that there are other edits on that range, so you'd be hitting a lot of false positives. If they edit a few more times perhaps we can narrow it down. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You're dropping knowledge, HelloAnnyong. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I'm not about to go apply a range block anywhere, since I just don't have the skills to figure out the collateral damage, but I am keeping my eye on those pages. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I need a help from an admin. There was a long editwarring over an article, and almost all participants of it were confirmed as sockpuppets of a sockmaster. And there is a user (who I'm not sure is a sockpuppet) but who permanently supports all that sockpuppets, receives advice from them, supports their editwarring with an agressive manner and oftenly attacks me any time backing that sockpuppets (I collected a lot of evidence). Are there any rules of Wikipedia regulating such a behaviour when a confirmed user permanently supports a sockmaster? Thank you in advance! Gazifikator (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

...and what article are we talking about? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

a very specific topic, Tamara Toumanova (ballerina). Gazifikator (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean

meatpuppetry. It's sort of a grey area - if they're editing on behalf of the account, i.e. under their direct orders, that's not really allowed. But if they just happen to have the same opinion, then there's not much we can do about that. Just based on a look at their edits, I'm not really sure there's even a meatpuppetry connection; their edits are a little too different, I think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Gazifikator (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, HelloAnnyong! You might already be aware of this, but a checkuser has confirmed that Gazifikator is a sockmaster of several accounts, editing the article on Toumanova. Please, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator/Archive#29 December 2011. Best regards, Antique Rose — Drop me a line 11:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the results there? At the time the CUs didn't see much of a reason to block him, so.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Rast5 was blocked indefinitely [35] and Gazifikator got a 2 week block [36]. In nuce, the CU obviously did see a reason to block Gazifikator. Or am I mistaken? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 16:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we blocked one and left the other unblocked, so the editor was only using one account. Since those initial blocks they haven't socked further, and I'm not going to retroactively block them on double jeopardy grounds or something. I don't know if you're trying to get this editor blocked for sockpuppeting as a way of getting around a content dispute or what, but it's not going to happen. Not without evidence of new socking. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, at the moment I have no intention of getting Gazifikator blocked. The reason for me commenting was Gazifikator's blatant denial of having used socks, and charging me with "silly accusations". From what I have read at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator/Archive Gazifikator is to be considered a sockmaster [37]. Since Gazifikator has been using sock accounts, it's a good idea to be observant of the account in question. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 16:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You accused me of being user Shulyatikov, it was and is a silly accusation [38] (see the result [39]). You're wikistalking not only me (by posting the same link to CU archive at any page I'm making a comment or asking a question), but you're also wikistalking that user just because he/she does not support your POV (you're calling him a "suspected sock" [40], making disruptive comments [41][42]). Is it a civil behaviour? Gazifikator (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this conversation is done now. You'll not be fighting this out on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

You recently blocked 218.250.159.25 based on discussions here. As the sockmaster's data is stale, the past few blocks have largely been on behavioural grounds. (Am I reading this right?) Is it customary on Wikipedia to do blocks like this, even when the data is so old? (The IP also claims not be Instantnood in this diff.)

In my opinion, the problem with IP editors from Hong Kong participating in Taiwan-related discussions (that's what I check, though I understand there have also been issues with Hong Kong-related discussions) is the large amount of drive-by sock/meatpuppets, not a single IP editor. I find 218.250.159.25 somewhat difficult to work with and exhibiting a bit of

, but if they are to be blocked, shouldn't it be done for disruption and after warnings?

I find this to be particularly important, because there has been concerns (on the SPI page, for example) that some editors are using SPIs on Instantnood to silence those they disagree with. I do wish there was a better way to deal with all the socking and meatpuppeting surrounding the contentious issue, but blocking IP editors who aren't obviously socking and whose behaviour on its own does not rise to the level of being blockable doesn't seem to be the solution... :/

If you had other considerations for blocking, would you mind sharing them? Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the additional ping—I should note that I'm currently engaged in a content dispute with the editor at this AfD and the related discussions. wctaiwan (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, what? Yes, this is a thing we do. Blocks can definitely be issued on behavioral grounds. In this case, however, a checkuser took extraordinary measures and pointed out that that IP was likely being controlled by an IP that we blocked a month back for similar actions. So I'm going to stand by my block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the reply. wctaiwan (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I also linked the IPs via identical diffs to confirmed name sock accounts SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hi HelloAnnyong, I'm not sure what the correct procedure for this is. I noticed that new IP address

talk

) 02:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Blocked for a week. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've actually pushed this over to

talk

) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This editor appears to have returned again and acknowledged ownership of the blocked IP edits here. Should these sorts of things get an SPI report every time or is just notifying an admin sufficient? I've reported it at SPI in any case. NULL (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Any reason not to block Kalyan97? He's only here to promote someone who might even be himself.

) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a sockpuppet case, not a case about his promotional efforts. It was their first offense, so I'm willing to let the master go with a warning for now. If it happens again of course we'll look at a block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok I guess although setting up a sock to create a new article which was deleted as copyvio, and then trying to get around that by creating it again with the sock but with a lowercase last name suggests a problem.

talk

) 07:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing to note:

≈≈≈≈ 00:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. First time offense, and not particularly offensive edits. Relist if they do it again and I'll deal with it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Just wanted to inquire why you have reverted the listing I posted recently for our new static code analysis tool? Is there something in post content that is inappropriate, or do you feel the product does not meet the criteria to be listed with the other tools currently on that list? Would it help to create a Wiki page for the product and link indirectly to it?

Just wanted to clarify so that we can share what we believe to be a valuable new, credible, real product in this space as well. Any advice to pass required editting restrictions would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgnazdowsky (talk • contribs) 16:19, February 25, 2012‎

So first, list articles like that don't have external links; they're supposed to be links to internal Wiki articles. Also, the text you added was heavily

Wikipedia's notability criteria in order for it to be included in the list. So if you can get through all that, then it can be readded. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

JMRH6 sockpuppet investigation

On the Nocrowx investigation - It is more about JMRH6 now and I have provided more evidence - however, you have put in a archive request. Please can you look it over again, if you have the time.Rain the 1 18:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your evidence doesn't really show much; disagreeing with JMRH6 isn't sufficient to show that they're the same. Also, look at the CU results: the two non-stale accounts were shown to be unrelated. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

William told me via my userpage that the CU results were for Nocrowx and JMRH6 only and that a behaviour check on would need to being taken on Bankhallbretherton and JMRH6. I thought you knew that because you tagged them as stale? Besides - the disagreement was with J3Mrs not JMRH6. Who clearly said that he had heard it all before. Probably two weeks earlier from the blocked account. Plus setting the refs out like that, block date March 2011, Join date March 2011 - same interests, same edit summaries. However, I did not know that editors can edit once they are blocked for promo usernames.Rain the 1 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As it is being archived there is probably no point in keeping on about the two accounts. Can I ask your view on the matter though? Do you think they are definitely not related? The question I should be asking though - If an editor is blocked for username vio promoting the articles they are editing - are they allowed to make a new account and not state that they used to have another account? If they are allowed to do that, then I have mistunderstood. Plus that would make the SPI kind of redundant - so I apologize for even opening it in the first place - as I know there are more blatant SPI's for you guys to be getting on with.Rain the 1 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

) 22:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by what you said about me there. There's no reason to be "curious", and no reason to impugn my motivations. I think I've been quite responsible about drawing your attention to diffs where the edit summary had to be hidden, etc. And it was me who opened the SPI in the first place. As I began to see the attempts by an IP to claim socking, I became suspicious, and eventually changed my mind. You did not change yours. That's perfectly reasonable, as the facts are difficult to ascertain. I haven't cast any aspersions on you, and there was no reason for you to do so on me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been - but filing for unblock on his behalf was sort of what pushed me to make that comment. I'm sorry if you were offended, but I was really just trying to be honest on there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion (now archived) at AN. I notified you of it, and you said it was OK with you. It seemed to me that the consensus there was that there was considerable reason to reassess the block. You knew about that discussion, but you did not take part in it. Based on what I thought, in good faith, was the consensus there, I asked that an administrator unblock. I was unaware, but I sure found out subsequently, that I am not permitted to place an unblock request template on someone else's behalf. So be it. I cannot imagine how you would see that as having "pushed" you. I can understand that, from your perspective, I am consistently questioning an administrative action (the block) that you made. I can understand how that can be annoying. No one, including me, likes to have their judgments questioned. But I promise you that I have never intended it to be a criticism of you personally. I interpret the behavioral evidence differently than you do. That happens. If you thought that I was trying to make you look bad, I'm sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[43] "This is getting very old very quickly." What would you propose I do? I decided to give up on the articles altogether, leaving them to the wolves, rather than continue any pretense of helping Wikipedia. Should I just start blocking people? Arbcom has shown itself to be toothless. The wider community has shown itself not to care. You are the most recent administrative contact I've had with this, and the best you could offer was that it was "getting old". You have no idea how much I agree with you. So, please, tell me, what should I do? --Golbez (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have an answer on this one. I'm not well versed in that whole content dispute, and it's basically impossible to tell exactly who controls what account and who does what. Honestly, part of me is inclined to just let them duke it out until it spills over and Arbcom has to deal with it. Or you could go rouge and start blocking people. I really just don't know - and I'm sorry that I don't. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have to apologize for barging in here, I was in a sour mood (a week after the fact, even) and feeling somewhat abandoned by the community. But it's not my problem anymore. --Golbez (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I understand. That whole thing drags down everyone who's remotely involved in it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, from the time when Golbez left NK-related articles, the consensus-building effort has not stopped and the discussion in the

Nagorno Karabakh article actually continues. Various issues and parts of the texts are discussed one by one, and neutral, third-party and high-quality sources are used to support write-ups. This may not be am ideal-ideal process but most people involved seem to try hard to comply with the earlier guidelines set by Golbez. All participants were CU-checked and are unrelated. Golbez asked to "re-own" earlier texts and one of the particpants (Zimmarod?) did that promptly, explaining rationale of every good-faith addition that was deleted. I do not see where the problem is. The only issue is User:Grandmaster with his usual bad-faith routine of filibustering the dialogue by making false, racist and conspiratorial statements about sources being hidden Armenians. Grandmaster will eventually get banned similarly to his meat-pal User:Tuscumbia and User:Brandmeister who made similar statements. If Golbez spent the last several years wisely he would built subject-matter expertise and could participate in the discussion in a more meaningful way. Winterbliss (talk

) 02:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And now we're done here. I'll hear no more on this topic. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"198.105.46.41 has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Really? Did you check?Cherylbarksdale (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, wanted to get your attention on this as you were the original clerking admin on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual. I'm pretty confident User:FavorLaw is a sock of this disruptive editor, and suspicious of the recently inactive account User:Grimso5 as well. User:Zenithfel suspects User:ChronicalUsual and his socks are themselves socks of an original editor who made a habit of editing disruptively on Libya content, User:FreemanSA, but I'm not confident enough to fully endorse that view at this moment. Anyway, thought you might want to take a look as you handled the previous (inconclusive) cases. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Settle down. I already endorsed; now it's time to wait for the CUs to take a look. Until then, be patient. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to check, did I file this report (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood) correctly? It didn't seem to appear on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations after I filed it. John Smith's (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Fixed, wasn't listed in Category:Open SPI cases so the bot couldn't find it. Amalthea 13:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual uses a proxy server to avoid the account creation/ip ban, so i don't think we heard the end of his socks. Sopher99 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you (checkusers) determine if an IP is a school or other public computer? I was looking at the Contribution list for an IP...and it appears to be all vandalism, going back about 2 years. The style of vandalism (most often "<person's name> is <stupid insult>" strongly suggests, to me, either an elementary or junior high school. Is determining the likely owner of what appears to be a static IP just a matter of feel, or are there some tools that either CU's or regular users can do? The vandalism from this IP is typically 1-10 edits in one session, with gaps of 1 or more months in between sessions. I don't see any constructive edits among the edits. Thus, if we have any reason to believe this is a school, it seems like escalating schoolblocks may be appropriate. Thanks for your help. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For schools in the US, you can do a whois on them, and it usually shows "PLACENAME School District" or something like that. For that IP, it seems like it's just home Internet. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(

(ʞlɐʇ)

05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And they appear to have a primary through senior high school. I've dropped a 3 month school block on. I'll make a note of those tools for future use. Thanks for the help from both of you! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I just re-opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akhunbaba due to another account adding the same material (2 different talk pages, and the new account's user page). All I did was change the SPI case status template from closed to open, so I'm not sure if that properly re-lists it or not. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoever is using the Edit Summaries to attack me is now attacking Tryptofish as well. I appreciate what you have done to protect this article. I believe the article has improved with the work I have done. It must be a major headache for you to deal with a very determined person who has nothing to contribute but confusion. Neurorel (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Wonderful. I've taken care of this, but let me know of other issues going forward. Give me edit diffs if possible. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for letting me know. And there's another one, at The Science Network [44], so you'll need to blank that edit summary too. By the way, just out of morbid curiosity, what did they say about me at Mirror neuron? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It was really just more of the same. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Well, I definitely don't geolocate there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response and decision on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.59.31.70. USEPA James (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please have a look at my comment here: [45]? Thanks. Grandmaster 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The person using the edit summaries to disrupt editing has done so on the entry for mirror box. It appears that IP address was already blocked when they used 170.213.131.190 to write the edit summary.Neurorel (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Neurorel

Here's the diff: [46]. They did it back on February 18, and I guess we didn't notice it until now, but I reverted it now. I don't see any more recent such edit summaries for the user contributions from that IP address. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you semi protected this article. It has a speedy A9 template on it, and seemed to meet the requirements for it, so I deleted it. But this subject is not really my specialty, and if I did something that you think is not correct, please correct it, by restoring the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jalexander--WMF 04:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to take a moment to express my strong appreciation for your contribution to the project. This happens to be occasioned by your recent WP:DUCK block, from SPI, of the OregonDucks97401 account as a reincarnation of a previous COI editor. But I also want to make it clear that I sincerely appreciate the very considerable and ongoing contribution you make here.

I think most of us tend to take the infrastructure that makes it possible for us to participate here somewhat for granted, but of course no one would be able to contribute at all without that infrastructure running relatively smoothly. You're one of the many dedicated folks who makes that happen, and I think we should all acknowledge such effort much more often than we generally do. So thank you, very much, for your work; I'm grateful for it. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's continuing. Diff: [47]. Neurorel told me about it at my talk. I don't see anything else from this IP address, but it's one of the same addresses that you blocked previously. In addition to wiping the edit summary and reblocking, it might be worth semi-protecting

) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ping. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've taken care of that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And let me add to the good wishes for your break. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the above investigation and make a judgement call? Its been sitting idle a few days. If you think it is an unjustified accusation, I am willing to engage the suspect some more regarding an ongoing AFD, but I do not want to waste my time if it is just another sock. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I really think banned user Rosanacurso is back. Please see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso. Let's see what happens at SPI, but I would like to suggest semi-protection of Tea (meal) and Talk:Tea (meal) as that has just been hit and they were by far the hardest hit pages last time. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18