→Blocking decision: +ty |
MarshallBagramyan (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
:Xabier, the IPs are stale. I'm not going to block an account just based on a suspicion that they edited from a bunch of IPs a few months back. No, I won't act on this for now. If there are ''further developments'', relist and we'll take a look at them - but it needs to be a bit more timely. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 22:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
:Xabier, the IPs are stale. I'm not going to block an account just based on a suspicion that they edited from a bunch of IPs a few months back. No, I won't act on this for now. If there are ''further developments'', relist and we'll take a look at them - but it needs to be a bit more timely. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 22:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks HelloAnnyong, I still haven't looked at the case, don't plan to, but if that's what's going on, that's exactly what should be done, nothing at this point. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="red"> (t) ]] <font color="blue">[[Special:EmailUser/DeltaQuad| (e)]]</font></font></font> 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
::Thanks HelloAnnyong, I still haven't looked at the case, don't plan to, but if that's what's going on, that's exactly what should be done, nothing at this point. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="red"> (t) ]] <font color="blue">[[Special:EmailUser/DeltaQuad| (e)]]</font></font></font> 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
==New section== |
|||
Excuse me for bringing this up so abruptly, but do you not find anything suspicious about [[User:Dighapet]]'s edits? How is it possible that a new user can begin creating perfectly edited articles right off the bat and file sockpuppet investigations with due attention paid to the procedures and requirements. This, along with the fact that he has exhibited many of the same characteristics borne by an editor who has been topic banned from editing articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, should have raised some alarm bells and yet no substantive investigative action, to the best of my knowledge, has been carried out. I say this now because I am amazed with the alacrity you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Monte_Melkonian blocked] one user on the, to be honest, truly weak basis ("two edits are identical"), and yet decided not to take any precautionary action against Dighapet when an administrator himself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tuscumbia/Archive admitted] that there was something suspicious with his account. I am not accusing you of adhering to a double standard but do understand that I find your actions baffling in light of what has transpired over the past few days, especially considering that these kinds of new accounts keep popping up every and then.--[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|talk]]) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:49, 14 April 2011
Something to say?
Sock
Hi Annyong. I just happened to notice this sock, User:יום_יפה, has been !voting in a lot of deletion discussions. Is it possible to just wind back all his edits? It would save a lot of trouble having to go through them all individually. The edits of the related socks should be dealt with in the same way IMO.
BTW, why do we allow people to create usernames with nonstandard characters? They seem quite inappropriate to me. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- There may be a way to mass rollback, but I can see a bunch of people have commented on those AFDs after that account did, so it'd fail in quite a few places. That sucks, though. As to why we allow non-standard usernames, it's because not everyone who edits here is a native English speaker, and we're not going to isolate people like that. You're not going to be able to change that policy, though, so I wouldn't put too much thought into it if I were you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I thought there was a way to delete all someone's edits? Seems to me that would be the appropriate way to respond to a sock like this, with dozens of different accounts.
- Hey, hope no ones minds me butting-in, really just here to see if there's a reason not to strike through all of יום יפה's votes. But if I'm already here: Gatoclass, you're neglecting to consider unified logins where a user would have the same username both at his native wiki, and here at the English Wikipedia. Rami R 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
What are we doing about 65.35.249.125? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing really can be done. There aren't enough edits to warrant a block, and they'd probably turn down protection for now due to there not being enough of a disruption. If it picks up again in the next few days then maybe we can list it, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
169.230.11.238
Just saw that you blocked 169.230.11.238, an IP I reverted for deleting comments from an AfD. After looking at it, I'm pretty positive the IP belongs to a UCSF computer lab instead of an individual. The block is brief enough that I guess it won't matter anyway, but since there was only one incidence of vandalism from that IP, I'm not sure a block is necessary. Kevin (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I get the sense is that it's Srbahena just taking a more dramatic approach to that AFD. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
New information for a sockpuppet investigation
This information is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dodo19 -- I don't usually get involved in these situations, but I could not help noticing that Erich Mayer, aka Erwin Meyer possibly has created a new alias (something like a sleeper cell waiting to strike). Keep an eye on User:Lasse Anderson. This ID was created right after Erich Mayer reported on his talk page on 6 April that he was finished with that user name. The log shows "00:00, 7 April 2011 Lasse Anderson (talk | contribs) new user account" - time is CDT (my time). Soon after, he started a bunch of HotCat activity, adding the Category Executed July 20 plotters--or Members of July 20 plot--to 10 different articles. This is probably his next ID waiting for the opportunity to use it as his next jumping off point. I already mentioned this to another editor at User_talk:Skol_fir#Twinkle.2C_twinkle_red_star. I am not sure it was passed on to you.
I see that Erwin Meyer was also very busy shortly thereafter, on 7 April. I am surprised you were able to track him. I missed that ID, as I am only following a couple of those articles that the "sockpuppet" is targetting. I find this individual's activity rather annoying, because he is totally fixated on upsetting the entire cataloguing system already in place with his own determination of how they should be indexed. I did notice though that lately, instead of removing categories, he has just been adding new ones. This user complains of over-categorization at Wikipedia. That may be true, but you don't solve it by using sockpuppets to completely tear apart the current structure of categories. --Skol fir (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
SPI Plouton2
Hi! A new account was created: User:Biggoboy. I guess he/she is part of the flock; would you mind checking? Alfie↑↓© 15:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Meetup guest
Are we finally going to get to meet that girl of yours? I promise not to bite! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking of bringing my great grandmother. *cough* — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, er...I promise not to bite her, either... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to appeal or have you follow User:Megalobingosaurus edits for a bit. On both the English and Italian Wikis, there have been 19 sockpuppets of Lorenzo Iorio's (aka Gravitom). So far Megalobingasaurus is following the same pattern and writing in the same style. The pattern of editing is consistent. Karuba333's edits started editing other pages and then went into Iorio's. Mega Sazabi 144 edits follow same pagern and user page is simalr to Megalo's. Look how Michoball writes with how Megalobingosaurus writes. Bgwhite (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just looked at Megalo's other edits. Tyrannosaurus' edits have been undone. Messerschmitt Bf 109 edits have been undone. Jagdtiger edits have been undone. Tiger II edits have been undone. Bgwhite (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have declined the unblock request. If you think any further investigation is required (not sure if a CU was done), feel free to revert. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine. And for the record, a checkuser was done; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MusicLogger/Archive. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar!
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For your tireless efforts at SPI - they're appreciated! TNXMan 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Heh, thanks. Always glad to lend a hand. Do we have a barnstar for checkusers? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The Checkuser's Barnstar | ||
We do now! (Template:The Checkuser's Barnstar) I agree with Tnxman307—you do a very good job. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Heh, thanks. I'm not a checkuser, though... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Quack?
Hello, HelloAnnyong! A bit ago, Vernanders (talk · contribs) made an edit to the Ted Bundy article.[1] An editor who has been improving the article considerably removed it, and Vern reinserted it later.[2] Since they are now blocked as a sock, they couldn't reinsert it, but another account Fans and critics alike (talk · contribs) just reinserted it with an edit summary "unusual" for an editor who's never edited the article.[3] I see no wrestling edits from this account, but they have made a lot of edits to Queen, whom Vernanders also seemed to like.[4] What do you think? Cheers :> Doc talk 18:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
For taking care of this. Per DUCK it's nice to know if the socking is fairly blatant I don't have to request a CU. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Anglo Pyramidologist
You closed this saying the autoblock had kicked in, so no action needed, but 86.10.119.131 (talk · contribs) is not blocked. Dougweller (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was at the time, but it seems to have expired. I've just added 3 days to it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Recent edit warring
I noticed that you blocked an IP user over edit warring on the Daily Caller. In my opinion, there were really two sides to that scene. I would appreciate if you'd take a look at the other editor's actions, including ignoring multiple warnings on his own talk page (which he has since deleted), as well as edit warring on the article's talk page and threatening (promising) a block on the other editor.
Thank you.
Jsharpminor (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I blocked for a combination of edit warring and use of multiple accounts and/or evading scrutiny. There was enough going on that at least a one-day block was warranted. As to the other account, I'll leave AN3 to deal with it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should leave a note about this at AN3 so they will be aware of your rationale. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- So done. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should leave a note about this at AN3 so they will be aware of your rationale. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- The above statement by Jsharpminor is factually incorrect. Multiple warnings were given and noted but I knew that they were not applicable since a user was committing vandalism by abusing multiple accounts. Reversion of vandalism is not edit warring. Comments on my talk page were not deleted. They were moved to a freely available to see archive. (And it's really not that hard for people to miss! It's right there, right there on my talk page. Click the link.) Vandalism on the article's talk page was removed by me (again, not edit warring). I did not "threaten" a block. I notified another editor (repeatedly) that their behavior will cause him or her to be blocked. I also tried constructively to note to him or her that vandalism is not the right path but he or she can changes things still (as you can read). Please note that ended up deciding to let the user's vandalism remain on the talk page on the hopes of putting some sense into him or her. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The block failed. The same editor is averting the block by editing using an alternative account, this one. See this edit. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocking decision
Hi, I have raised a request of sockpuppetry about User:ConcernedPhotographer, and I would like to show my kind disagreement with your decision. I think you are right about the elusive purpose of the IPs blocking... but:
- the user and its different IPs have been editing in many wikipedia projects, not only the English one, and their pattern is quite solid. They have been editing during these last months in other wikipedia projects: they are still quite active.
- the user has been blocked in the past, and now he/she is editing again. That is Evasion of blocks. As far as I understand, creating new users as a way to avoid previous blocks is not right, even more if it is not only one user, but also a handful of IPs.
- the main user has been active during the months of January, February, March and April. It's active, it's (I think) an aka of blocked users, and he's engaging in the same promotional editing than those blocked users.
I don't know if it is posible the decision to be reconsidered, nor what is the procedure. Yet I guess that it's worthy to pay a look again. Thank you very much for your job. --Xabier Cid (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I personally haven't looked over the account that detailed yet. The IPs are definitely block stale (now that I am awake to that fact :P). Pending HelloAnnyong's view I can/might look into account more. Thanks HelloAnnyong for dealing with the 6 day old case. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Xabier, the IPs are stale. I'm not going to block an account just based on a suspicion that they edited from a bunch of IPs a few months back. No, I won't act on this for now. If there are further developments, relist and we'll take a look at them - but it needs to be a bit more timely. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
New section
Excuse me for bringing this up so abruptly, but do you not find anything suspicious about User:Dighapet's edits? How is it possible that a new user can begin creating perfectly edited articles right off the bat and file sockpuppet investigations with due attention paid to the procedures and requirements. This, along with the fact that he has exhibited many of the same characteristics borne by an editor who has been topic banned from editing articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, should have raised some alarm bells and yet no substantive investigative action, to the best of my knowledge, has been carried out. I say this now because I am amazed with the alacrity you blocked one user on the, to be honest, truly weak basis ("two edits are identical"), and yet decided not to take any precautionary action against Dighapet when an administrator himself admitted that there was something suspicious with his account. I am not accusing you of adhering to a double standard but do understand that I find your actions baffling in light of what has transpired over the past few days, especially considering that these kinds of new accounts keep popping up every and then.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)