User talk:Mayalld/Archive/2009/March

New sockpuppet case before the old one is closed

Regarding your comment on my talk page, see my remarks at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive3#Re: CUs or Clerks "checking" before archiving. --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ResearchEditor sock investigation

Oops, revised. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence

Please see the additional evidence on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla. Is it sufficient? Please let me know if you would like to see further examples. Thank you The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne

I'm pretty sure that GRB080 is his latest incarnation. The articles of interest are pretty much the same but the MO has changed a bit - instead of wikifying or de-wikifying various words, he's now adding shorthand titles to referenced links within (what appear to be) random articles. It would be okay I suppose if he didn't use such short shorthand, and would capitalize them properly. As it is, he's "improving" the articles but in the course of it just making more work for future editors.

In any event, I mention this because under the new sockpuppet procedures I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Does one make a new report, or fish up the old one (which has been archived for a while now)? Whichever it is, I'm happy to do it, provided it doesn't have to done soon! Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just go to WP:SPI, and file a new case using the boxes, as AlexLevyOne (no case number). The form will automagically add the new case in the correct place. Mayalld (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a miracle. Done. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing for User:Samlaptop85213

Hi I noticed you recently delisted and closed the Sock report I'd made for this user. I had made recommendations that the pages affected be semi-protected and another user had agreed that this would be best. I agree with your decision to close the report especially since the other user account has been given an indefinite block, but has semi-protection been applied? Can you do this? Or should I just make a normal semi-protection request at WP:RPP? Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You should request semi-protection where needed at WP:RPP. Note that normal criteria as to levels of vandalism apply to protection decisions and that if this user is running a low level of vandalism insufficient to warrant protection of a page, the only remedy may be to revert it. Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another sad solutionless problem with wikipedia. Oh well thanks for the help anyway. I'll try my luck at RPP. -Thibbs (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magkantog

Please see the above. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that I have a headache at this point! The case seems to have got no less confusing, and bound up in mud slinging, and the reporter fixes issues by rewriting the case from scratch, removing previous comments.... Mayalld (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Mayalld. Thanks for your helpful comments on my talk page regarding this. This is my first SPI filed, and I am very new, so please excuse my clumsiness on the SPI. My edits since March 3rd have been to apologize to admins for my first set of mess-ups and to to add diffs and new evidence, I did not copy and paste. I did copy and pasted on my first and second attempts because 1) I was blocked during the first attempt at an SPI and an admin cut and pasted for me (he did not review it, just did the C&P b/c I was blocked). My first attempt was really bad (see first clerk note), and the whole thing had to be rewritten. So, I 2) reedited on my talk page and recopied it once I was unblocked. Should I just delete this one and start over? Can I use the "strike" button to cross out stuff that might be taken for mudslinging? I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm still learning protocol. Your patience is greatly appreciated. --Lhakthong (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The copy on your talk page contained the {{SPIcat}} template, which breaks the system if used on non-SPI pages, but is vital on SPI pages. I commented it out on your user talk page to stop it breaking things, When you edited and copied it from your talk page, you copied over the commented out version of the template, breaking the live case page. As far as SPI is concerned, editing in your user space, then copying it to the case is not a good idea.

No, you should not delete the case and start over. Your second attempt was effectively doing that, and was the wrong way to proceed. You must never, under any circumstances, remove anything from an SPI case (You can use strikeout to remove your own remarks if absolutely necessary), and doing so will get you blocked again.

You need to add a much clearer set of evidence (half as many words, 3 or 4 times as many diffs) that demonstrates to somebody who has no background with this case what evidence exists that somebody is violating WP:SOCK.

Mayalld (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the clarification. I'll go back to it to try to cut the words and add more diffs. Will not delete; will not cut and paste ever again into SPI. One last question just to make sure I don't mess up again: You are suggesting I get to 1/2 as many words. So, is it OK to make deletions that are for the sake of brevity if they don't eliminate content? Again, thanks and apologies. --Lhakthong (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Go to the bottom of the evidence already submitted, and type in your revised evidence. Leave everything that has gone before in place, and ADD a new more concise view of the evidence with diffs. Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! --Lhakthong (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Made suggested the changes. I hope it was enough to bring it up to par. Thanks again for your guidance. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppet template

User:Eaglesfan619 both accused me and User:JimRDJones of being sock puppets of each other after I found evidence that Eaglesfan619 was acting as a sock puppet for User:Rockyobody. You closed both sock puppet investigations for lacking good faith, since he was currently under investigation. He hasn't presented any evidence of either of our uses of each other as a sock puppet and I was just wondering if it would be wrong for me to remove the suspected sock puppet template from my user page that Eaglesfan619 added. Thank you. Thorburn (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As the cases are closed, it would be entirely proper to remove the templates. Mayalld (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide evidence

Hi there! please provide evidence to support your accusation. Do you have evidence to support your statements, or is it one of those personal point of views all over again. Have i ever vandalized the Philippine article?. I guess not. I have improved this article, such as corrected words on sentences and removed all Nuetral Point of View. Thank you for your co-operation. User:AlvarezQz March 12 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. I am a clerk at the WP:SPI process. An allegation has been made by somebody else, and I am notifying you of that allegation, in order that you can respond to it at the case page. Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WT:SPI

I'm kinda confused on the stale cases thing, I don't recall seeing it prior to yesterday and I'm really not sure how it works as... right now its not showing anything but it really should be. Plus though I did not mention it on the talk page... the interval for "stale" case needs to be upped from 24 hours to maybe 1 week. (I was planning on having the bot maintain a list of cases older then 1 week anyway). Please comment on WT:SPI if you can. —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for moving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFronsdorf‎. Still a bit of an SPI noob, and wasn't sure whether it would be assuming too much to link these cases definitively to that user. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem :-) Mayalld (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rangersarecool

Pardon me if I disagree but rangersarecool is a very smart 4th grader and would not make a account called rangerarecool1234. do you know who would? someone who wanted rangersarecool would. do you know who that is? davidthedograt. How do I know? im in his class. im also in david the dogman's class im also in foxcows, jeffhardys, and rangersarecool. if it wasnt for davidthedograt rangersarecool wouldn't be blocked. darknesswolf is another account used for cantributions, not vandalism! he was trying to get away from niv, who new what rangersarecools password was. (he found out while he was typing it in class) then he made darknesswolf. then a classmate comes and says ooooh lets make a account called rangerarecool1234 and create vandalism so they'l think im rangersarecool! oh and for good measure, he says he is rangersarecool on your talk page. hes not that dumb. hes in a gifted class, we all are. (exept sometimes I wonder about davidthedograt...) enyway hes a straght A student in gifted 4th grade and loves wikipedia. he always talks about it! sorry to disturb you, im just angry at the people who blocked him, and didnt unblock him. Jinxyouowemeasoda (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Spammed messages like this convince me that we got the correct answer in this case. Mayalld (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Colonel_Warden/Archive

My ears are burning. Your prompt closure of this matter seems reasonable but I am puzzled by your comment that "it is clear that the IP and the user are one and the same". There have been numerous editors who have expressed an interest in this contested merger and it seems that the IP in question is in the USA, while I am in Britain. I have been consciously restraining myself as this topic is covered by general arbcom sanctions which require editors to conform to "any expected standards of behavior". In any case, it is not my style to conceal my edits, though I might, on occasion, not notice that I am not logged in. So, please could you amend your comment to fully clear my name.

Perhaps you might also consider whether User:ScienceApologist and User:Verbal are conducting themselves properly. The former has already been banned from topics of this sort while the latter seems to be openly edit warring against the action of the uninvolved admin user:Ruslik0 who recently restored the article in question. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have refactored my closing comments, which weren't sufficiently clear. My intent was to make the point that even if the IP was you, it wouldn't be socking. I am aware of the fact that SA is restricted on such articles, and would offer the opinion that bad faith sockpuppet reports about people who SA might edit war with if he was allowed to edit there seem to be yet another example of the "Civil Disobedience" that is heading towards a 3 month ban. Mayalld (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for editing the archived case. Unomi (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Case

You have closed this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meoconne case with the motivation that the problems stopped, because there was no edits made by these accounts. If they are sockpuppets than they are sockpuppets, disregarder the fact whether they make any edits or not.

BTW, the problems did stopped, but they stopped because I stopped editind the article, to avoid problems while it was investigated, and the current version is theirs. It can by no means stay like that, important parts needs to be added again. I will do it soon and I am sure that it will be more trouble again. What if I add them and everything starts all over again?

Did you checked the IP adresseses?

Warrington (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the IP addresses were not checked, and would not be checked out in a case like this. The evidence of sockpuppetry was tenuous at best, and as such there was nothing more to be done. Mayalld (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your point of wiew. Just let me add a clarification. The Komondor article is edited wery seldomly indeed, and I still think that it is strange that suddenly four accounts which do not edit anything else but Komondor related topics, all of the sudden start working in the same direction, supporting each other in all ways. Because of one picture taken at W, Dog Show.

And all of them are referring to a Komondor dog called Quincy, which is said to be the one in that picture.

Warrington (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Astatine-210

Seeing your recent entries in that user's talk page .... maybe you can help me. Background: the top of the computing category tree includes:

Category:Computing

Category:Software

Category:Application software

These are all tagged "catdifffuse" - subcategories should be used. Over the last several years I've been cleaning up the computing categorizations (thousands of edits), including those three categories - which now have just the few appropriate articles. In recent months I've been using a Google search to find new articles with the word "software" and then, if necessary, adding the appropriate software categories - a "get there first approach". The most common case is an article classified "Computing" that belongs in a subcategory of "Application software".

Feb 28-Mar 1 (several edits) Astatine created Freecorder.

Mar 4 I found the article, category "computing" and changed the cat to "Digital audio recording". Usually this is sufficient; most Wikipedians seem able to recognize when a global category is replaced by a specific category. But ...

Mar 7 Astatine restored "computing" and added the category "Computer Programs". There is no such category "Computer Programs".

Mar 7 My first note to Austine User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/2009/March#Freecorder categories. I had also noticed that his user page was categorized "Wikipedia pages with to-do lists" which I believe to be an error, so I posted a 2nd note User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/2009/March#To do

Mar 11 Getting no replies, I asked: User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/2009/March#No reply to "Freecorder", "To Do" comments ???. His reply, "..can't expect... reply to everything"! (note that his user page has the category "WIkipedia administrator hopefuls" !!!)

Mar 13 I replied to his comment: for "To Do" gave the link to Wikipedian user page categorization. Asked him to look at category computing.

Mar 13 (1st three edits). He changes the non-existent category "Computer Programs" to "Software".

Mar 13 My note: asked him to remove categories "Computing" and "Software". Gave the the complete tree structure to show that those categories were not needed. User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/2009/March#Freecorder

Mar 13 (last three edit edits to Freecorder): he removes "Software" but adds categories essentially marching up the tree. He used the tree structure I just gave him - no good deed goes unpunished!

Audio software - wrong, Digital audio recording is already a subcat

Multimedia software - wrong, Audio software is a subcat

Multimedia - wrong. Multimedia software is a subcat and this is NOT a category for software articles.

Application software - wrong, Multimedia software is a sub cat.

Mar 13 Astatine's rely to me, in User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/2009/March#Freecorder, stating that for his article "It needs to be categorized into all categories, even subcats".

Oh, yes, his user page is still categorized.

So: for me, I regard the exchange above as unreal, then there is your experience and the very recent User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/2009/March#Your edit notice. Is there a pattern here? What can be done? Thanks, 69.106.242.20 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

regarding the closed SPI of Erikeltic.

It would appear that the user is back to their old tricks since your closure of their SPI. An initial block of the anon accounts was a good idea, but the user, after their short block appears to have created at least one different account to act as support within at least one AfD that I am aware of. The discovery and discussion of such is ongoing at this AN/I. As you were the closing admin, I am wondering if a new checkuser needs to be filed, even though it appears conclusive that the two are the same individual. I've sent a similar message to the editor who originally filed the SPI report. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please file a new SPI case. Where a user is a chronic recidivist Sockpuppeteer, it helps to build a comprehensive picture of their activities for future reference. Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would just add a '2' to the new investigation, right? Example: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Erikeltic2. Is that correct? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, just file it under the same name. SPI cases are all filed under a single name, and we build an archive of reports as sections of that single page. Mayalld (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Another user beat me to it. The SPI can be found here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne

In all the excitement, no one thought to block the actual Alexandre Gilbert account and he is still editing. I feel silly creating a new sockpuppet report for this (this last one quickly archived) - suggestions? JohnInDC (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The case was archived a bit prematurely, which isn't like Synergy, he's usually spot on, but we all have off days. Lucasbfr who was the CU on the case is doing some wider range blocks on him tonight, so I've dropped him a note to remind him of the missing block. (Keeps fingers crossed that I pass RfA in a couple of months, then I can do this stuff myself) Mayalld (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

GL! JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

St. Mary's Church

Hi Mayalld. As informed on the article's talk page, I got the material from another Wikipedia article, Handsworth, South Yorkshire, did you detect a problem? Regards, Wikityke (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, whilst you may have obtained the text from another Wikipedia article, it is plain that the content comes originally from the Church website, and is a copyright violation. The church article cannot remain, and it must be removed from the Handsworth article Mayalld (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info'. As the Wikipedia article seems to date from 2004, how should I check if it was the source for the church article, rather than the other way around? (thanks in advance for any tips). Regards, Wikityke (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with speedy deletion if the content represents a copyright violation, of course. Wikityke (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla

Dear Mayalld. There have been no new findings in the Mwalla case since March 9. At the same time, Mwalla continues using his socks in an unproductive manner. Would it be possible to move the case to the "Cases in need of attention" - open SPI cases which have not been updated in the last three days? Thank you. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The "cases not updated in the last 3 days" is a semi-automatic categorisation, and works based on when the case was last edited. As the case was edited less than 3 days ago, it won't appear there. The category is designed to catch cases that haev gone so deathly quiet that we need to consider closing them. This case is gradually working its way to the bottom of the case list, so reat assured that it is seen as a case that has been around for a while. Mayalld (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld, I will let you draw your own conclusions on the issues raised by The Sceptical Chymist. He has a POV and does not assume good faith. He has consistently harrassed me. Wikipedia is a big place, but he chooses to follow me around. When he has a disagreement with an established editor such as Orangemarlin[1], he does not try to compromise and instead tries to get them blocked [[2]] he also recruits other editors to opine on his behalf. I suspect these other editors are in fact his sock puppets. Mwalla (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Whilst I am happy to discuss the administration of SPI cases here, the actual issues must be addressed on the case page. Mayalld (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld, thank you for your reply. I understand and I will be patient. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good one!

As shown here we have a multi- multi- multi- banned sockpuppet, using a sockpuppet to edit while banned, and asking when block will expire. New policy: time off for bad behavior? (c; - --Boston (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jefcostello

Was there anything left to do on this one? I found Nish's comment confusing (confirmed, but no third master). Did we just need a block? Synergy 14:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just waiting for a block! Mayalld (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're not on irc ever. Blocked, tagged and archived. Synergy 14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I need to get the firewall admin to open the port. Trouble is that the firewall admin is me, and I haven't got around to it! Mayalld (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I only suggest it because many admin frequent IRC, and SPI has its own channel for us (clerks) and checkusers idle there. Plus, I can see all the edits made to cases, subpages, and others. All around, its much easier, and you should consider it. :) Synergy 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I shall see what I can do! Mayalld (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with fram

(was posting this on the investigation as you closed it -- the gist of it is that i disagree he's owned up). Agreeing with Fram up above. Kage's (Ks6's) claims of "freely admiting" that snarktastic is his sock are false. He was asked, explicity, a few days ago, and Fram has it right. He just "tsked" at us, told us to AGF and didn't answer the question. And he was using snarktastic to edit war in material he was told was not acceptable (a blog post written by one writer with two handles "moo means hello" and "rage kage." I strongly suspect a COI for kage and this anonymous blogger). He was clearly aware that socks are not to be used here, and he used them. And now he's "owning up" and self-justifying because the truth is already out.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also (ill let it drop after this). This Ip -- who he said was a friend he asked to edit on his behalf -- pops up smack dab in the middle of his series of edits here from march 3 [3]. Looks more like accidentally logged out rather than a friend. And then the same IP votes on an AFD for an article he created. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, sir, as you'll note, these users are still questioning me on these other accounts. Again, I would be happy for you to have to run Checkuser on the IP addresses they are noting; I was completely and forthrightly honest about it. However, I am concerned that, even after the verdict you rendered, that they persist in this behavior. Thank you for your understanding, and I apologize for taking up your time in this manner. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP may not be you, I have not claimed he is: I am saying that your current claim that you never asked it to edit for you is flatly contradicted by your earlier statements and by the actions of the IP.[4] This was a meatpuppet, plain and simple, and you have not been "completely and forthrightly honest" about it, just like you weren't when asked about Snarktastic before this sockpuppet investigation. You only become "completely and fortrightly honest" when itbecomes impossible to deny, and even then you try to minimize everything that happened and at the same time attack other editors, as you did in the sokcpuppet page. Fram (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This case has stretched good faith, but I am assuming good faith here. Basically, we are on a two strikes and you're out track here. Ks64q2 has been given a second chance. If he refrains from socking, all will be well. If he indulges again after giving assurances, a very long block would be inevitable. Mayalld (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And, as I said, sir, I am more than happy to abide by the conditions you set forward. Thank you for your time. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, and thanks for your swift handling of the case. Fram (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Things seem to be getting out of control with this Mwalla person. I don't know if you are an admin or not but saw that you were involved in the discussion. It seems the admins or regulators have forgotten about the sock investigation of Mwalla. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has forgotten about it. SPI cases take a long time to deal with, and the more complex the case, the longer it takes. Unfortunately, this particular case gets more complicated by the hour, as ever more accusations are piled on. If both yourself and the reporter could refrain from posting more and more to the case page, there might be a chance that the case would get looked at. Mayalld (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi

Hi,

This is a request for advice, really. I notice that you warned Albert-Kraft (talk · contribs) in response to the above SSP investigation. That account has just made another edit clearly designed to promote Bonello ([5]), and within 15 minutes, a newly-created account made another edit to the MP3 article ([6]).

There are still people clearly acting as socks (or meats, I guess), so my question is; is there a quick way to solve the problem, or do I need to open another investigation at WP:SPI? Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you open another case, then evidence of continued meatpuppetry after such a warning should lead to a rapid resolution. Mayalld (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet nvestigation

Please advise on why you believe that multiple attempts (well over 10 and possibly as many as 20) by two puppets to change the same text in the same manner is not indicative of one person using multiple puppets. If that isn't some sort of indication, I frankly don't know what is an indication.

Please check attempts to change "English Common Law" Section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Philo-Centinel

and compare with continuing attempts to change that section by what look like a throwaway single purpose puppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Conlawgeek141.154.15.141 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read what was written. I have made no judgement whatsoever on the question of whether this is socking, because I haven't investigated the Sockpuppetry allegations.

What I HAVE done is evaluated the request for CheckUser. There are five main reasons that CU can be used (codes A-E), none of which apply here.

Unless one of the five reasons apply, you really have to have an extremely good reason why this case is exceptional, and needs CheckUser running. You supplied no such reasons, and as such the request for CU was denied.

Most Sockpuppet cases don't involve CheckUser. Mayalld (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what was written. CheckUSer sounds like a tool used to check for multiple puppets by the same person. If you decline to use the tool, doesn't that mean that the sock puppet investigation is dead? or are there other tools that can be used for this purpose?141.154.15.141 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser is a tool that allows certain users to investigate serious sockpuppetry cases. It gives access to IP address information that is normally not available to other users. Because it breaches the privacy of users, it is used only in the most serious cases.

Under normal circumstances, Admins working at SPI use a variety of techniques, including behavioural and linguistic tests to determine whether two users are the same.

80% of SPI cases are resolved without using Checkuser, and neither the fact that you don't understand how a case can be dealt with without a tool, nor having a strop about it will make me inclined to endorse a request that isn't needed Mayalld (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that I was not the one to request Checkuser. Stepshep who set up the request did. This is my first request for a sockpuppet investigation and I obviously don't know all the ropes. I apologize for any offense I may have inadvertently given due to my ignorance of wiki procedures. I hope that you can see that when a newbie sees something like "Checkuser declined" how he can misinterpret that to mean that the investigation has been dropped.141.154.15.141 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you advise how I might create/load to Wikipedia ueLock5.svg, an upside-down version of the ueLock3.svg that I think you created?

Many thanks SalakCop (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Done File:BSicon ueLock5.svg Mayalld (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! SalakCop (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Check again

Check this again. The "US" IP is a proxy. That means -anyone- can access it. It is also a proxy used by a Brazilian company and has access all over the world. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you would have looked at the links, you would see that the last IP did what the other IPs did - remove the signature put there by sinebot to replace with its own (both even state "sinebot rv"). This is unique behavior in an area that random IPs don't stray, which means that he is a signed out user. That in and of itself is proof that this is socking. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So, your contention is that this is, on behavioural grounds, blatant socking? In that case,  Clerk declined as not necessary. Mayalld (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to what I was told, two CUs did the check as necessary. Thank you for taking the time to look again, though. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pongostick

The person who is handling the checkuser on this "dropped the ball" in his words, and has told me that he'll try to finish it shortly. Please leave it open for the time being.   Will Beback  talk  18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now been informed that the page can be archived with no finding.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reconsider

If I understand i used the wrong code letter. I've fixed that here [7]Bali ultimate (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, we aren't about process getting in the way of doing the right thing, and I'd have been quite happy to reconsider based on another code, although it should be remembered that if it doesn't fit into A-E, you need a really convincing case to get a CU approved. However, the point is moot, as all the accounts are now blocked. Mayalld (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Mayalld, thanks for noticing pages that I added or edited. My bad, I think I posted an autobiography here before (2 years ago) that should have been placed on my user page. Thanks again. Timlight (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Reg. Sock case

Hi,

You have said CU done here [1]. What about the rest of the users? Nishkid64 has just analysed one article. Thanks, ShivNarayanan (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that the original master account is NOT in fact involved in sockpuppetry, although some of the suggested socks are. Nishkid didn't identify any master account, and I will be taking the case forward to look for a master, part of which will be to try to find a master account. If a master is identified, a new case will be opened to sort that out. This case will not be getting further CU attention, as it would fall within the scope of "fishing".

As an aside, when filing cases, it is important to try and keep the case concise. Whilst we need adequate diffs to investigate, pages and pages of advocacy are entirely counterproductive, and make it very difficult to actually pick out the important evidence. In addition, it is important to list only those accounts which are obviously related. Listing dozens of accounts which just might be related, in a kind of scattergun approach is very counterproductive. Mayalld (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked YellowMonkey as to how he concluded and if there has ever been a sock case against the users he has mentioned. He said [8]. When there is no actual data, how can he conclude that the master account is not related? His statement w.r.t the case should be disregarded. I have filed a conflict of interest case with the arbcom [9] as there is no actual past data. Thanks, ShivNarayanan (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. In the circumstances, I must decline to take any further part in processing this case. Mayalld (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and WP:3RR

•  Clerk note: It is clear to me that;

1. All the IP addresses listed in the case are you
2. You are not deliberately switching IP address
3. You have violated WP:3RR (note that it doesn't matter whether your edits are "right", 3RR is an absolute limit)

Breach of WP:3RR is a blockable offence, with the intent that blocking breaks the cycle of reverts, and allows time for discussion of the issues.

There are two ways that we can deal with this;

1. You can be blocked. Such a block might not be effective, because you will get a new IP soon, and you would probably be technically able to edit again (which WOULD result in a much more detailed investigation, and probably end up with a long-ish block on anonymous editing from that IP block).
2. You can accept the terms of a block, without it actually being applied to this IP, and refrain from editing any page on Wikipedia for 24 hours. Upon your return, you engage with other editors on the article talk page, and if you want help, come and ask me for advice.

Your choice Mayalld (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Reread your post. U didnt give me anything 2 choose from. AND AGAIN what about redpen reverting legit edits 3x? Did u even look? 70.108.102.252 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You were given two choices.

1. Be blocked, and when you find that you can get round the block, be blocked more thoroughly, causing others to be accidentally blocked along with you.
2. Accept that your behaviour warants a block, and don't edit for 24 hours voluntarily.

Mayalld (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

redpen's 3rr

Maya here is redpen's 3rr : stalker redpen has been stalking me since 22Mar. For this encounter, redpen stalked me to Andrea Anders. I simple corrected The Class to The Class (TV series) & redpen reverted saying wpblp, yet I added no bio info! I then added sources 4 the nfo that was already in the article that I didnt add but still redpen has reverted. The reverts:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&diff=prev&oldid=280086228
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&diff=next&oldid=280111695
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&diff=next&oldid=280144152
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&diff=next&oldid=280148503

If you will please take the time you'll see that redpen is following me throughout wiki & reverting all my edits. Please intervene. Thanks. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

on noticeboard it says redpen is blocked but redpen still edits

william said that redpen was blocked [10] for 24hours yet redpen has been editing. Did william jsut say he would block but didnt? 173.79.59.36 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I'm sorry but where do I send it? Universal Hero (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here Mayalld (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.108.118.234

He is being disruptive again, I think he should be blocked again. Momusufan (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually he is under 1 week block, could we get the talk page protected? Momusufan (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

CU confirms that the IP's belong to an indef blocked user Lilkunta (talk · contribs) DIFF Momusufan (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty sure the CU would turn something up! This isn't going to be a quick fix, but at least we are onto him. Mayalld (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he made another response on the page admitting to this finding. Momusufan (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)