HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) →SPI: re |
|||
Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
Hi, I noticed that you declined the CU in this case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Slovenski_Volk&curid=32041968&diff=433589770&oldid=433587056]. But I have had similar cases where a CU was performed. I think in this one it will be conclusive, because the edits are within a minute of each other. Thanks, [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 18:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, I noticed that you declined the CU in this case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Slovenski_Volk&curid=32041968&diff=433589770&oldid=433587056]. But I have had similar cases where a CU was performed. I think in this one it will be conclusive, because the edits are within a minute of each other. Thanks, [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 18:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:They connected an IP to an account? That's rare; it's usually only done in extenuating circumstances. This case isn't nearly prolific enough to warrant that, but I think the evidence is strong enough that it's not a problem. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 18:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:47, 10 June 2011
Something to say?
If you're here to report a potential sock, go to WP:SPI and open a case for the master there.
Given recent actions by NanaRobins what is the procedure for having this looked at again ? Mtking (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Last time a checkuser was run, and it showed that the accounts are probably not the same person. They may be working in collusion as meatpuppets, however. Do you have any new diffs to support a connection? If so, you can relist, and if the evidence is strong enough, we could come up with other options. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me clarify that a little more, now that I've had a checkuser take another look at it. First, there's no overlap in these accounts. It basically seems like Rainman64 was abandoned and was replaced by NanaRobins. So there's no abuse of accounts here per se. As long as they're sticking to one account, there honestly isn't much of a reason to block. It's sucky, I know, but I don't personally feel comfortable with a block just yet. Maybe once both accounts are being used at the same time, then we can take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that around the same time you handed out the blocks, I posted an update with an additional suspected account. Singularity42 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked editor is back
Hi HelloAnnyong, you recently blocked this editor, for a week, but it appears they are now back as this IP address and making the exact same edit despite your block. Regardless of the block though, this article is currently subject to 1RR which I informed the blocked editor about. I also placed the 1RR notice on the article talk page discussion and despite this, the current IP account ignored it, and reverted the article twice, here and here before they commented directly under the notice I placed in the discussion. Can this be sorted out, or should I post this on the Arb enforcement page? Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh. You can post on AE if you'd like. In the meantime, I've blocked 212.183.128.41 for evasion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I filed a request, which I think is correctly formatted? I think this is going to be an ongoing problem which needs a long term solution.--Domer48'fenian' 21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that looks right. Arbcom enforcement really isn't my specialty, but I guess we'll see what comes up. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I filed a request, which I think is correctly formatted? I think this is going to be an ongoing problem which needs a long term solution.--Domer48'fenian' 21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well it did not take long. As to the calibre of this IP, this post would be representative. I left a post on AGK's talk page. No point in letting it drag on.--Domer48'fenian' 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wonderful. I've taken some steps to stop this editor for now, so we'll see. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm waying in, Fot the record Domer has made 5 edits in 3 days to this page - [1]. Also you have reverted the page back to disputed content. If you have time to look at the discussion there are 3 for the change and 3 against the change. So why has this change been made? Who knows, but I would say that this is what the page looked like prior to edit war - [2]. Bjmullan suggested the change was as a result of consensus on talk page. AttackZack (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Um, what? I didn't revert any content on that page - I only protected the article. And the current version, just like the link you gave before the edit war, does not contain the word 'international'. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake. But the 2nd diff does show that international was in the body of the text prior to the change made by Bjmullan. If you look here [3] you will see that 'international' has been in the text for 6 months until recently. Probably longer but I just did a diff between the 1s and last edit on the screen. Bjmullan stopped edit warring due to a warning from Domer48 - [4]. But then Domer took up the mantle and made a number of edits. Surely he deserves a block aswell. AttackZack (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Domer has got away with it. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackZack (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the notice both on the discussion and the top of the article, Per Troubles Arbcom, and 1RR, "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". Contrabutions by Indef blocked editors and their socks should be ignored.--Domer48'fenian' 14:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- ohh sorry, so edits by IPs can be reverted without explanation? ok. But can their opionions be ignored in discussions aswell? ok then why did you revert this [6]. The onus is on you to justify the change not the other way around. This is a breach of 1RR. Either way there is still no consensus in the talk page.
- HelloAnnoying, can you revert the page back to its original content as here, as per O Fenian's last revision [7] AttackZack (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not getting involved in this. I'm not passing any judgment on the edits in question; my block/protection was based solely on there being persistent sockpuppetry. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- HelloAnnyong, this editor is a sock!!! I'm shocked! Your powers of deduction boarder on the paranormal.--Domer48'fenian' 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to MFIreland to discussion other than block appeal
I've responded to this request to MFIreland at User talk:Alex79818#Indef blocked account. Any such request to a user blocked for sock puppetry seems entirely inappropriate for the reason I outlined. Could you please take a look. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have information that Alex79818 has socked prolifically as well, using both IP and named accounts. Not sure how to proceed as currently Check User would not be valid as he has used IP sock. I would also need to reveal information I have on real life identity to prove a sock puppet case. Any advice? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Um.. if Alex79818 has used other named accounts then we can run a checkuser on them. If it's just IPs, though, that's a bit more iffy. If you think you can start a case for the named accounts, then go ahead. You can also email me your evidence. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Done, thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Update. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad Faith?
So SummerPhD's bad faith accusation to get his way in a deletion discussion is fine? Seriously? Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- His accusation wasn't in bad faith - he had actual evidence, and it turned out to be true anyway. Compare that to your accusing two editors with more than 40,000 edits each of being sockpuppets. If I were you I would just drop the issue and move on. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Jake Picasso
Blah indeed! I have been going through the latest batch of socks and tagged the obvious hoaxes, but will come back to one or two of the articles later; there are also a few articles that are going to have to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to root out some of the errors he snuck in, either with those accounts or with IP edits that are obviously him. But even by doing a bit of lateral thinking and searching for a bit of a "give" he has in his edits, I came across another one from March. I'm not quite sure if that is past what would be a safe time limit to avoid collateral damage - the laws of chance would suggest there comes a time with dynamically assigned IP addresses when there is a good chance they are going to be assigned to bona-fide contributors. I don't mind brining the account to SPI, although I might see if Ican dig a few others from around the time. Any thoughts? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Paultioetc
[8] Persistent little devil, another IP sock. Can I ask if user talk pages can be semi-protected. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- They can be, but it's not really done unless it's particularly crazy vandalism or something; see WP:UPROT. Unless your talk page really picks up pace, it's probably not justified. Sorry. :/ — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
False sockpuppetry accusation
I have complained about you to the administrator's Notice Board,[9] since you have been banning my different IP's with no actual reason whatsoever. Two different people can react in a similar way faced with the deletion of cited content, and that does not make them the same person. In fact, our "behavioral evidence" if inspected closely shows that we have a different point of view in regard to a particular citation: [10] ı believed the citation of Gehri needs to stay as it is
From the talk page registered user tells this: [11] and not agreeing with him I made a different argument: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.80.214 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BOOMERANG. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
My Recent SPI
See all those usernames in that users contribs. All the usernames start with Tro. All! The user you also recently blocked is already trying to contest it. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or / mine 17:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's a false positive. If you take a look at Wekn reven i susej eht's most recent edits, you'll see they moved onto usernames that start with D. My guess is they're running a bot and just picked and arbitrary starting place. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well all those usernames seemed very suspicious at first. As I said, that user is already contesting their block. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or / mine 17:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I've commented on Wekn's talk page, the behaviour seems odd but my impression is that a second chance might be in order. I can't comment on the possibility of running a bot, which seems a bit technical to me but it's not something I've tried. So, a block to stop the excess was certainly appropriate, but it seems worth reviewing. . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Annyong, thank you for expressing your concern regarding my sockpuppetry/disruptive editing case. You did what you thought was best, and I respect that decision (like how are you supposed to warn anyone who is welcoming people at 50 an hour?) and want to commend you for your actions against potential vandalism. If you ever need a spelling check on an article or help with slavic language translation, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I've commented on Wekn's talk page, the behaviour seems odd but my impression is that a second chance might be in order. I can't comment on the possibility of running a bot, which seems a bit technical to me but it's not something I've tried. So, a block to stop the excess was certainly appropriate, but it seems worth reviewing. . . dave souza, talk 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well all those usernames seemed very suspicious at first. As I said, that user is already contesting their block. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or / mine 17:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there ANNYONG, VASCO here,
judging from your last addition here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_2), i got the feeling you did not find my reply satisfying. Well, i was only saying i could not find any significant diffs, it was more of a gut feeling.
If you blocked him, turns out you did find it was him. Sorry for any incovenience, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- There has to have been _something_ that gave you a gut feeling. Same category of articles, same style, something - that just needs to be listed in the case. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes mate, i mentioned that previously, meaning: i had no diffs per se, but the (appalling) style of writing, the removing of dots in the football clubs (i told/warned him about that, he continued, in all 60+ accounts!), the exclusivity of Portuguese football in edits, made me "raise an eyebrow". I mentioned that in my report.
Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, i think i continued to make a mess of myself in the following answer to you :( So you mean i should have provided diffs for all those things i mentioned? Well, i guess i could add all his edits with this account, but i guess that would have may have been not enough proof to convict Pararubbas in the wiki-court, on the account that it could be only a coincidence...
By the way, if you don't mind me asking: 1 - why was the checkuser (always 100% reliable) not possible in this case; 2 - how did you find out it was him? Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would've just liked to have some actual diffs, rather than having to go and search for them myself. The burden is on the person logging the report; just having a hunch really isn't sufficient. We could have run a checkuser to see if it was the same as that other account that was blocked, but all the data we have on the master and their confirmed socks is stale. In other words, the last confirmed case we have is from September 2010, so all the data we have on those accounts has gone stale in the nine months. Port9307890 was blocked as a suspected sock, so we could have run a check against that I guess. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for processing the case. My apologies but I forgot to link one of the socks in the original report headers, but there was a follow-up confirmation by Dominic: [13]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Testing a block?
Hi again HelloAnnyong, could this possibly be a test edit to check the effectiveness of a block?--Domer48'fenian' 16:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this user apparently created many accounts in different projects, is it necessary to report all of them on here too? for example user from Arabic or Chinese Wikipedia. ■ MMXX talk 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant - we only handle checkuser requests on the English Wikipedia. If there's abuse actively going on, you'd have to open requests on each of the other Wikis - or perhaps take it to Steward requests/Checkuser on Meta. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case (Darwinek)
And where do I respond to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darwinek case? Bellow the "evidence"? Ratipok (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
For deleting that. And for starting the SPI in the first place, that was done very efficiently. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Quesiton
Is this worth including in the evidence section of the SPI I filed today? I was looking through some edits to see if I could find any other overlaps and I found two more examples of similar editing. [14] [15] [16] As you can see, Jake has an interest in the Doctor Who universe, as does Chartered Wombat.[17] In addition, Jake expressed interest in DC Comics here [18] and Chartered Wombat edited DC Comics here [19]. With the evidence I've already added to the SPI, do you think this additional information is worth adding? I'd rather not add anything to the SPI if it's unhelpful or redundant. Erikeltic (Talk) 03:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Um.. the first three links don't actually show any sort of connection; they're just links to history pages, which I can find on my own. The others are marginally more useful, though. The case was endorsed for a checkuser anyway, so we've sort of moved past the point of evidence. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Archived SPI
Hi, I noticed on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pinkmermaid/Archive that only two of the socks were blocked. Don't you usually block the Sock Master too? I have an ip address that belongs to the sockmaster user:Pinkmermaid that's also being used as a sock puppet. Can anything be done? All of these accounts are disruptive. Here's the other ip that was missed Special:Contributions/75.83.150.58 thanks!
--76.74.158.234 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
And now I see user:Pinkmermaid just now removed an admins edits once again, re inserting unsourced, unverifiable info. This is why the sock master should be blocked, in my opinion.
--76.74.158.234 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know who you are, but don't try to call in a block because you don't like the edits that account has been making. Being a sockmaster and making unsourced edits are, in this case, mutually exclusive things. And I didn't block PM because it was a first time offense, and they seem to have learned their lesson. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
SPI
You often write "blocking, but endorsing for sleepers" with regards to checkuser requests. What does that mean? Just curious, thanks.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It means just that: I've blocked the suspected sock puppets (usually based on behavioral evidence), but I'm endorsing the request for a checkuser to be run. Running a checkuser usually isn't done unless there's reason to do so, and endorsing for a check is basically confirming that there's a reason. In this case, it's to find sleepers - accounts that were created by the sockmaster but haven't been used yet. It can also refer to other accounts that are connected with the sockmaster but are not immediately apparent. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know what a sleeper account was. Now I know! Thanks for answering. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Favour?
Sorry to bother you, but could you please delete User:Truthkeeper88/Vincent van Gogh sandbox when you have time. I don't need it & mistakenly created it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciate it! Btw - I still have your page watched from all our fun two summers ago. From what I see in edit summaries you're keeping busy, but impressive work you seem to be doing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your block of 76.109.44.50 (talk · contribs). I would appreciate your perspective, on this, issue. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sock investigation notice
You were previously involved in blocking one of the related socks; please see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
SPI
Now that User:The Last Angry Man has made more edits, I wonder if you could look at the account again determine if it is a sock account of User:mark nutley, User:Tentontunic. To summarize, the similarities were TLAM appears to show experience, the IPs used by TLAM before the account was set up are from the South of England, there is an emphasis on Communist and English far right topics, TLAM edit wars mostly over POV tags, the language is similar, other editors suspect they are the same account, TLAM has created a number of stubs on controversial topics. TFD (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It should be possible to do. Open an SPI case for it and we'll take a look. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Whack-a-mole
User:Haeretica Pravitas back as User: 83.199.113.29 on Sheldon Lee Glashow with this edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I took care of this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, I saw the semi. I'll let you know if HP comes back to Lee Smolin and Sidney Coleman, the other two articles they've hit before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Couple more ducks
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andreas2009. Thanks again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks... I realized a few miutes ago I had forgotten to actually ask for checkuser, after saying it in the report and was frantically looking for the code to change it. Found it, but you got there first. Cheers. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
SPI
Hi, I noticed that you declined the CU in this case [20]. But I have had similar cases where a CU was performed. I think in this one it will be conclusive, because the edits are within a minute of each other. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)