→19 April 2016: clarify |
|||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
Again, in the hope of having this taken care of soon before more disruption occurs, pinging those most familiar with this irritation: {{U|Bbb23}}, {{U|Ponyo}}, {{U|Mike V}}. Requesting CU, check for sleepers, blah, blah, blah. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 16:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
Again, in the hope of having this taken care of soon before more disruption occurs, pinging those most familiar with this irritation: {{U|Bbb23}}, {{U|Ponyo}}, {{U|Mike V}}. Requesting CU, check for sleepers, blah, blah, blah. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 16:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
I have no problem with not mentioning it again, {{U|Bbb23}}, now that you've acknowledged you have seen my request and that nothing along those lines can be done. That said, it would have been more appropriate for you to say earlier that it wasn't possible when I first mentioned it, rather than completely ignoring my previous requests/queries on the subject. One of the biggest problems I've noted in regard to non-admin/admin relations and communication is that admins often ignore valid questions and requests from non-admins, as if we are annoying children, to be seen but not heard or paid attention to. I asked a question, you didn't answer it, therefore I felt I had every right and reason to ask the same thing again. Not answering is bad enough, but it's disrespectful and rude when you later chastise the person asking the question more than once because you didn't take the time to answer in the first place. Had |
I have no problem with not mentioning it again, {{U|Bbb23}}, now that you've acknowledged you have seen my request and that nothing along those lines can be done. That said, it would have been more appropriate for you to say earlier that it wasn't possible when I first mentioned it, rather than completely ignoring my previous requests/queries on the subject. One of the biggest problems I've noted in regard to non-admin/admin relations and communication is that admins often ignore valid questions and requests from non-admins, as if we are annoying children, to be seen but not heard or paid attention to. I asked a question, you didn't answer it, therefore I felt I had every right and reason to ask the same thing again. Not answering is bad enough, but it's disrespectful and rude when you later chastise the person asking the question more than once because you didn't take the time to answer in the first place. Had you or someone else responded before, I wouldn't have had to repeat myself. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
====<big>Comments by other users</big>==== |
====<big>Comments by other users</big>==== |
||
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
Revision as of 00:42, 20 April 2016
Joseph Prasad
- Joseph Prasad (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Populated account categories: confirmed
18 April 2016
– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Elemental293 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Same as all the others:
- The Babymetal article revert was a re-revert of a G5 that the most recently caught Prasad sock reverted from my previous G5 of a prior Prasad sock. He's now being so obvious, it almost seems pathological, to be honest.
- First edit is to a Drake Bell related article - his stated obsession article-wise is anything Drake Bell [4]
- Second and third edits are to place ref improve banners on articles (new users don't do this kind of thing - Prasad socks are known for executing edits that only experienced users would perform) [5], [6]
Duck, duck, goose. Can something be done here that will be long-lasting? A WP:LTA permaban, rangeblock, something? He's obviously going to keep coming back over unless something more is done.
As always, asking for CU and check for sleepers as he's also known for creating those. Pinging Mike V, Ponyo and Bbb23 as being all too familiar with this kid and his refusal to go away - hoping for a quick resolution and block. He's moving quickly with this sock account and making a lot of edits, better to nip it in the bud ASAP than let him continue disrupting unfettered while getting more editing satisfaction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bbb23, in regard to the CU finding over GeneralazationsAreGood12 and your further note regarding behavioral evidence, is the behavioral evidence to be gathered and presented by you, another admin, an SPI clerk? How does that work? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- I don't recall having any bad moments with Joseph Prasad, so this is puzzling to me. Music is not my topic area of choice, although I might have reverted them while RC-patrolling. GABHello! 19:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Elemental293 is Confirmed, blocked, and tagged.
- GeneralazationsAreGood12 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a technical match but Behavioural evidence needs evaluation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: You're welcome to offer behavioral evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
19 April 2016
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Falsetto202 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Do we really need to keep compiling mountains of the same evidence for this serial sock creator to be blocked each time he creates a new one? (that was mostly sarcastic and rhetorical, by the way - I know how the process needs to work)
Because I am short on time at the moment and would like to see this obvious sock blocked ASAP, I am giving these two pieces of evidence: account created about nine hours after the latest sock was blocked; two of the edits made was to revert my G5 revert of their revert, etc. [7], [8] I'm sure there will be more of these G5 re-reverts to come, as that is how this sockmaster rolls.
And this is a weird: the sock created another sock as the sock? [9] I'll leave that for the reviewing admins and CU to sort out.
Tedious, simply quite boring and tedious. Would love to see a community ban/LTA ban of this individual as well as a range-block, if possible. It's apparent Joseph Prasad gets a kick out of being an irritation and making all of us run around and chase him. His preschool-like antics are getting more and more disruptive. Something permanent needs to be done, it would seem. I beseech admins to make a bold move in regard to him. He's not going to be stopped until something is done on our end to stop him.
Again, in the hope of having this taken care of soon before more disruption occurs, pinging those most familiar with this irritation: Bbb23, Ponyo, Mike V. Requesting CU, check for sleepers, blah, blah, blah. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with not mentioning it again, Bbb23, now that you've acknowledged you have seen my request and that nothing along those lines can be done. That said, it would have been more appropriate for you to say earlier that it wasn't possible when I first mentioned it, rather than completely ignoring my previous requests/queries on the subject. One of the biggest problems I've noted in regard to non-admin/admin relations and communication is that admins often ignore valid questions and requests from non-admins, as if we are annoying children, to be seen but not heard or paid attention to. I asked a question, you didn't answer it, therefore I felt I had every right and reason to ask the same thing again. Not answering is bad enough, but it's disrespectful and rude when you later chastise the person asking the question more than once because you didn't take the time to answer in the first place. Had you or someone else responded before, I wouldn't have had to repeat myself. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- The following accounts are Confirmed, blocked and tagged:
- Falsetto202 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Goblin309 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- @Winkelvi: Please stop asking for range blocks, etc., every time you add a new puppet. If there was something I could do to mitigate the situation I would. I assure you there are many masters who are far more prolific than Joseph Prasad, and there's often nothing we can do about them except block them as they pop up. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)