Jump to content

User talk:DoRD/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 14

Dicklyon

Why was he indefblocked? Normally, for first cases of sockpuppetry, we don't block indefinitely unless it's exceptionally egregious (vandal / outing socks). Additionally, I think one should consider how pressured and frustrated he likely was by certain crazed opponents.... Maybe reduce the block to a week? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. SPI always shrouds itself in secrecy but this seemed particularly harsh coming right after comments by CUs saying that the accusations against him had no validity.
Indefinite block might not be infinite, in theory, but in this case, with no explanation, it was like saying, "Goodbye, nice knowing you, don't let the door hit you on the way out." Not a great way to treat a longtime editor. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. I was just coming here to comment on Reaper Eternal's question, so I'll address both, if you don't mind. Reaper and I already had a conversation about this elsewhere, and I'll get to that shortly.
The block was based on private information, and it involved a discussion with several other CUs, so I can't really go into detail here. Though it was not a decision I came to lightly, it did have wide support from those other CUs. However, after listening to Reaper's reasoning, and seeing a couple of concerns on my talk, I have started a discussion with the rest of the functionaries - not just CheckUsers - to gain some wider input. I realize that my message to Dicklyon was probably a bit too short and matter-of-fact, but I in no way meant for it to be taken as "don't let the door hit you in the ass." ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry for being so glib. I realize that CUs and SPI clerks have a rather thankless job...some editors are upset when socking is confirmed while others get upset when you find no connection between accounts that they are 100% certain are socks. And there are privacy concerns, of course.
But I keep running into unexplained cases where no information is given. Here's another example, this week, I stumbled across User:Mosfetfaser who is identified as a sockpuppet of User:Youreallycan and editors are referred to the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youreallycan/Archive for more information. But if you go to the SPI, there is no mention of Mosfetfaser as a possible sock, just another sock, User:Tuscantreat. So, what's the connection? Why isn't this confirmed sock mentioned in the SPI if a CU was done and this account popped up? If it was a WP:DUCK, why refer people to the SPI? I seem to run into these odd cases at least once a week.
Now what usually happens when I try to have these conversations is a comment that I need to assume good faith in the people and the process. And I do have GF. I'm just trying to understand how Wikipedia works. I have no connection to any of the editors mentioned in this conversation. Thanks, in advance for your patience and indulgence in all of my questions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
In the thick of it, he told me that he hoped it was a permanent block: he wanted out. This illustrates how a hurricane can engulf an experienced, talented editor. We should not be stamping a temporary pscyhological phenomenon with permanence. It's all too silly. Tony (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Undertrialryryr

Hi DORD! Perchance, can Undertrialryryr's IP range be blocked, given that he is attacking other users continuously? Thanks --115ash→(☏) 09:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that won't be possible. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Dord, could you tell me the reason? Ip range of this can be blocked. --115ash→(☏) 08:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I requested many times to block the IP range of ZORDANLIGHTER for one to two months, but CU rejected my suggestion.--C E (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There are a very large number of unrelated users on the range, and the vast majority of them are making productive edits, so a rangeblock would prevent the many IP editors from going about their work. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The latest DeFacto sock case

Nothing seems to have happened at [1] for the last three weeks. Is there a problem that needs to be addressed? Michael Glass (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Skilled Group

I've extended the talk page protection and blocked an editor, which really irritated them - an IP from Australia showed up on my talk page with some bon mots. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pleasant fellow, isn't he? Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm...

I had Taikoguide earmarked as a possible Mangoeater sleeper from a CU done months ago. They were Tally ho from some Mango socks active on a common IP, but Taiko had 0 edits at the time. I can email you additional details if it would be helpful. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: YGM. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
backatcha.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Need clarification

Hi. I just need a clarification. The reason of the block to User talk:216.81.94.72 was vandalism or sock-pupperty or something else? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion - I'm convinced that this was Sonic2030, or at least a user who was blocked as Sonic2030. I didn't leave a block notice because this person knows what they're doing and is aware of why they were blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not here because of you not leaving a block notice. I still wonder how we can be sure (or quite sure) about it since it seems this is a shared IP. I am not familiar with Sonic2030 and their editing preferences. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I only learned of the IP's edits after being summoned to OZ's talk page, and he appears to be correct about the socking this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious activity, Craig.Dumbarton and similar

Do you have a sock drawer for "good hand/bad hand" pairs of accounts? One to possibly watch is Craigdumbarton123 (talk · contribs)/Craig.Dumbarton (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

They're schoolmates, and their IP address is already under a long-term {{schoolblock}}. I'm not sure why the blocking CU didn't block account creation, but I'll adjust it later if necessary. Anyway, I went ahead and blocked 123 as a VOA, but I left the other one alone. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for checkuser

Hi, your Reduncyship. You did a CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SCD Fan. Behavioural evidence strongly inclines me to think that Buggydance1972 is another sockpuppet of the same person, but the fact that you did not mention that account in your CU report discourages me from blocking it. Presumably there is no compelling CU evidence against that account, or you would have mentioned it, but I wonder if you would be willing have a CU look at the account, and let me know whether you think it is at all possible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it turns out that that'll be part of another sockfarm. Results will be posted there shortly. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Open proxy?

Can you check 103.11.192.114 to see if it's an open proxy? It's probably Kumioko. (I doubt anyone in Ulan Bator is interested in me.) BMK (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the tools to do an open proxy check, unfortunately. Taking a guess at it, though, I'd say that it probably is. Since it's already blocked, though, I guess it's a moot point now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Salvidrim! got it, sorry to bother you. BMK (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't really check anything other than the previous ProcseeBot block and the current listing on the "Open Proxies" report, though. But yea, needed to be blocked regardless, being a open proxy is just the easy reason. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Based on this it is an open proxy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirming this...Here are my scan results minus 6 traceroute hops (masking my networks):
Scan Results

sudo nmap -sV -T4 -O -Pn -A -v 103.11.192.114

Starting Nmap 6.40 (http://nmap.org) at 2015-05-09 22:14 EDT
NSE: Loaded 110 scripts for scanning.
NSE: Script Pre-scanning.
Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 22:14
Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 22:14, 0.32s elapsed
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan at 22:14
Scanning 103.11.192.114 [1000 ports]
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 103.11.192.114
Discovered open port 53/tcp on 103.11.192.114
Discovered open port 23/tcp on 103.11.192.114
Discovered open port 21/tcp on 103.11.192.114
Discovered open port 22/tcp on 103.11.192.114
Discovered open port 8080/tcp on 103.11.192.114
Discovered open port 2000/tcp on 103.11.192.114
Discovered open port 8291/tcp on 103.11.192.114
Completed SYN Stealth Scan at 22:14, 26.15s elapsed (1000 total ports)
Initiating Service scan at 22:14
Scanning 8 services on 103.11.192.114
Completed Service scan at 22:16, 137.93s elapsed (8 services on 1 host)
Initiating OS detection (try #1) against 103.11.192.114
Retrying OS detection (try #2) against 103.11.192.114
Initiating Traceroute at 22:16
Completed Traceroute at 22:16, 0.29s elapsed
Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 15 hosts. at 22:16
Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 15 hosts. at 22:17, 0.42s elapsed
NSE: Script scanning 103.11.192.114.
Initiating NSE at 22:17
Completed NSE at 22:17, 43.41s elapsed
Nmap scan report for 103.11.192.114
Host is up (0.28s latency).
Not shown
991 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
21/tcp open ftp MikroTik router ftpd 5.24
22/tcp open ssh MikroTik RouterOS sshd (protocol 2.0)
_ssh-hostkey: 1024 ab:3d:90:5f:f5:de:fa:54:c4:bb:7f:ef:98:18:14:eb (DSA)
23/tcp open telnet Linux telnetd
53/tcp open domain MikroTik RouterOS named or OpenDNS Updater
80/tcp open http MikroTik router config httpd
_http-methods: No Allow or Public header in OPTIONS response (status code 503)
http-robots.txt: 1 disallowed entry
_/
_http-title: RouterOS router configuration page
646/tcp filtered ldp
2000/tcp open bandwidth-test MikroTik bandwidth-test server
8080/tcp open http-proxy?
_http-open-proxy: ERROR: Script execution failed (use -d to debug)
_http-title: RouterOS router configuration page
8291/tcp open unknown
Device type: storage-misc-WAP-general purpose-firewall-broadband router-remote management
Running (JUST GUESSING): HP embedded (97%), Linux 2.4.X|2.6.X (96%), Check Point Linux 2.4.X (93%), Linksys Linux 2.4.X (92%), Dell embedded (92%), Netgear embedded (92%)
OS CPE: cpe:/h:hp:p2000_g3 cpe:/o:linux:linux_kernel:2.4 cpe:/o:linux:linux_kernel:2.6 cpe:/o:linux:linux_kernel:2.6.34 cpe:/o:checkpoint:linux_kernel:2.4 cpe:/o:linksys:linux_kernel:2.4 :cpe:/h:dell:remote_access_card:6 cpe:/h:netgear:dg834g
Aggressive OS guesses: HP P2000 G3 NAS device (97%), DD-WRT v24-sp1 (Linux 2.4.36) (96%), DD-WRT v23 (Linux 2.4.37) (95%), Linux 2.6.31 - 2.6.35 (95%), DD-WRT v24-sp2 (Linux 2.6.34) (95%), Linux 2.6.35 :(94%), Check Point VPN-1 UTM appliance (93%), DD-WRT (Linux 2.6.34) (93%), Linux 2.6.32 (92%), Linux 2.4.21 - 2.4.25 (embedded) (92%)
No exact OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).
Uptime guess: 2.041 days (since Thu May 7 21:19:11 2015)
Network Distance: 15 hops
TCP Sequence Prediction: Difficulty=206 (Good luck!)
IP ID Sequence Generation: All zeros
Service Info: OSs: Linux, RouterOS; Device: router; CPE: cpe:/o:linux:linux_kernel
TRACEROUTE (using port 143/tcp)
HOP RTT ADDRESS
1 1.83 ms MyRouter.Home (192.168.254.254)
7 49.45 ms atl-bb1-link.telia.net (80.239.194.9)
8 64.45 ms ash-bb4-link.telia.net (80.91.247.172)
9 153.35 ms ffm-bb2-link.telia.net (62.115.141.109)
10 157.01 ms ffm-b1-link.telia.net (62.115.136.168)
11 188.11 ms newtelco-ic-310845-ffm-b1.c.telia.net (213.248.93.2)
12 272.33 ms br1.fra-cr2.uln.gemnet.mn (180.149.95.245)
13 268.29 ms 180.149.112.238
14 267.51 ms 202.70.32.77
15 275.96 ms 103.11.192.114
NSE: Script Post-scanning.
Initiating NSE at 22:17
Completed NSE at 22:17, 0.00s elapsed
Read data files from: /usr/bin/../share/nmap
OS and Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at http://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 218.26 seconds
Raw packets sent: 1479 (68.748KB) | Rcvd: 1370 (58.544KB)

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Malayalam actress usernames

May I please dump this in your lap?

You famousblocked User:Bindu Ramakrishnan (Malayalam actress) and User:Anthony Bradbury deleted the userpage.

FYI, there are more.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I'd post at User talk:Mini Arun (Malayalam actress) before any block happens just to see if we can get a dialogue going. I hope that's okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The user does not respond, but continues to work on the latest userpage draft. I now see you have blocked lots of these per famousblock. Should we consider an SPI at this point to help others (me in this case) know what to do in future cases?
Oh, and the great firewall of China is making it very hard for me to load pages off and on. For this reason, it is taking me lots of time to figure out which the first account is for a possible SPI. Please advise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about your firewall troubles. Anyway, after adjusting my search, I've just cu-blocked a bunch more accounts:
I'm going to be pressed for time today and tomorrow, but I'll try to look further into this to decide whether an SPI is necessary and/or if there are older accounts.
Fair enough. Should I wait until you decide about the SPI before deleting the userpages as FAKEARTICLES? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Alright, I think that it would be worthwhile to set up an SPI to document these accounts and to get some more eyes on them. I did place a rangeblock to slow them down, but I expect that they will resume once it expires. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For possible SPI

Here's the list:

(Registered: 10:40, 14 May 2015, earliest I can find)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User:96.242.156.213

Appears to be Mangoeater1000. Making some of the same edits as Cryptjohson, a previous sock you blocked. Could you take a look? BMK (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I don't recall seeing Mango using that ISP before. I'll try to look at it further, but as I said to Anna below, I'll be pressed for time today and tomorrow. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks, whatever insights you can give would be great. BMK (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, my weekend got rather busy. After digging around, I don't think that it's Mango, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. BMK (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Peninsula College

The first edit summary by that editor said "Adding content to Peninsula College description - Emma Janssen, Web Manager for Peninsula College".[2] I don't think OS was appropriate. Doug Weller (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't notice that edit summary. You are correct, of course, so I will reverse my action now. I will leave a note with the editor I warned, as well. Thanks for the heads up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem, we all miss things once in a while. Doug Weller (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Which?

On User Talk:Howaboutudance which edit are you saying should not have been reverted at the end, the one I reverted or the one you reverted? Rubbish computer 17:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Howaboutudance's message on the article talk page turned out to not be eligible for suppression (per the above discussion). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Rubbish computer 22:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Other accounts

Hi. Quick question. A now-indef-blocked editor indicated that they had also edited under other accounts, though they did not reveal which. Do we have some tool to discover this, and if so block the other accounts? I have in mind this recent matter. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that you're talking about Mellowed, I wasn't able to see any other accounts, or any indication of previous accounts. That's not to say that there aren't any, it's just that CU data only goes back so far. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that is who I had in mind. Ah -- so if I understand it, which I thought might be the case, is it that even though he indicates he used other accounts (which he is not revealing), a CU was done and at least the CU does not reveal (perhaps because it only goes back so far, perhaps because he used other computers, etc) what those accounts were. So ... absent other evidence, such as similarity in editing, etc., nothing to indicate what accounts that may have been. CU is not a help here. Did I understand correctly? Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The way I read his comment is that these were previous accounts he used in the past, not that he had edited from multiple accounts currently. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That's the way I understood it as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Suicide Is Painless Juan Riley (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It was unclear, IMHO. He wrote "As I have stated before, this is not my first account. While I am not going to divulge prior identities, I have made tens of thousands of edits over a multi-year period." He indicates he has edited from multiple accounts -- and he does make clear that he has edited from more than one other account. And he indicates he has done so over a "multiple year period." And he indicates he will not reveal the names of those accounts. One reason for that could be that he does not want action taken with regard to those edits; there are few reasons I can imagine for his reticence now to reveal their names, given that he is revealing their existence. He give no indication of when, if ever, he last edited from the other accounts. But ... we've gone as far as C/U can take us (I tend to be against the continued existence of puppets of indef blocked users). DoRD -- thanks for the input. Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You did see, I hope, that the editor requested to have themselves indefinitely blocked as a way of retiring and forcing themselves not to spend time editing Wikipedia. I believe if, one day, they wanted to return as an editor, they could request to be unblocked and it would be granted. Liz Read! Talk! 11:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I did see that. I also saw that the editor indicated that it had edited from multiple accounts, which may be contrary to our rules, and independent cause for concern. But the editor chose not to indicate which accounts, thus concealing from scrutiny whether that is the case -- and, for example, whether any of those other accounts were indef blocked. If that were the case, a request to be unblocked would not be granted. Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Please let me pass my exams!

I had Please let me pass my exams! (talk · contribs) on my WP:Watchlist as a WP:Sock account; I noticed that you recently gave the account a WP:CheckUser block. Will you note here which account User:Please let me pass my exams! belongs to? Flyer22 (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't really have an answer for you. Not yet, anyway. I have a long list of related accounts, if that helps. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

VPP

Can you give your views here. I just want to know whether Check User tools can deal with these huge IPs.--C E (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll comment there in a bit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, CosmicEmperor, I'm not sure what you're asking for. The CU tool works just fine with IPv6 addresses, if that's what you mean. You might want to look at User:Jasper Deng/IPv6 (or this) for more information. As for being able to remember a particular IPv6 address, there's not much hope of that since there are about 3.4×1038 possible addresses. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For exposing and shutting down the OccultZone sock farm. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for saving Wikipedia a lot of time and effort dealing with this persons multiple personalities in the future. Chillum 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake

Oh, DoRD, I don't know what happened with this edit! I was looking at an old revision of this user page and then Chrome crashed and I just reopened it to find it undid your work. I'm sorry, I don't know how that happened. My apologies to you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, anyone with a rollback button is bound to misclick once in a while. A few days ago, I had to rollback my rollback of a rollback. Thanks for the note ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The thought that Liz would do this maliciously actually makes me smile - she's one of the most cautious and thoughtful editors we have.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I know, right? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is kind of you to say. But I still don't know how it happened. I was looking at a previous version of the page and I don't see how the browser shutting down would cause the most recent edit to be undone. I should take responsibility but I really don't remember hitting that button.
I've just been looking at the user pages of these sock accounts wondering if I could see any relation to each other. I still don't know how one person juggles that many different accounts with a different persona for each. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...if you didn't misclick, I haven't a clue how the rollback happened. I've never seen anything like that before, but if it happens again, I'd mention it on WP:VPT. As for OZ, that remains a mystery. Unless he lets us in on what's going on, or some pertinent evidence surfaces, I'm just as much in the dark as everyone else. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone

The user was brought for spi investigation by you. One of his socks "Fundarise" participated in an rfc on Barelvi article. He commented in defence of Gorge and sounds alot like GorgeCustersSabre because they both edit on South asian related articles. Fundarise's Barelvi ANI post is almost identical to Gorge's post in barelvi rfc, One other thing Gorge has been in conflict with xtremedood looking at his talk page. Can you check if they are related? 50.118.172.89 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Muktar allebbey SPI

Hi! I know that you are very busy. I just thought that maybe you forgot about the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Muktar allebbey case. Just to remind you, I sent you a (somewhat scaled down) copies of e-mails that Hadraa has linked at a discussion page trying to prove his point. They are hard to read, but if you enlarge, it becomes readable (at least I was able to read). The e-mail address and username is a clear evidence of connection between Hadraa and the sockmaster. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone sockfarm

Thanks for unearthing this.
I have interacted for years with some of the accounts, and seen other around on India/Hinduism related pages and while there were clear ideological matches, that ideology was not uncommon enough for me to to suspect sockpuppetry at such a massive scale. Genuinely shocked and wondering I was the only one walking around with such giant blinkers. Not sure how you go to the bottom of this, but real glad you did. Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised at the extent of it myself, but between the CU evidence and the behavioral evidence, I could only come to one conclusion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
But OccultZone came in 2013 while Amritsyaputra was from 2008. Amritsya whatever his name is, is the actual sockmaster. 2013 2008.--Cosmic  Emperor  05:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I realize that, but as I stated in the case, I named it that way to go along with the ArbCom case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, I realise you are limited in what you can say - if you have to reply now with "no comment" then so be it. Is it possible that active accounts were missed when you did the OZ check? I've got a couple exhibiting odd behaviour but it would definitely need a CU & there's no point filing if the CU has already covered that ground. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, DoRD. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Deleted topic

Hello DoRD, The topic pertaining to Speaker Knockerz, a highly notable hip-hop artist and producer with national airplay, has been deleted for some time now. I believe the reason for deletion is outdated and I would personally like to create the article. To deny that Speaker Knockerz is a notable artist would be absurd. He has produced records for such artists as Meek Mill, 2 Chainz, Pusha T... the list of multi-millionaire artists he has worked with goes on. Most of his own music, as well, surpasses 10+ million views on YouTube. Please let me know how I can go about this, because I feel it is a massive injustice. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speaker_Knockerz&action=edit&redlink=1 Jaybird42 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC) August 25th 2015 8:20PM EST Jaybird42 (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Cat Creek, Montana

I wanted to know about why you fully protected this page for an entire year due to sockpuppetry. That seems kind of drastic to me, wouldn't semi-protection be enough, or at most short-term full protection? Everymorning (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in replying, Everymorning - I've been away from the project, as you can see from my contributions. The article has been the target of a persistent sockpuppeting vandal for an extended period, so after failing to stop them by other means, I thought that full protection was necessary. Semi protection doesn't work because the vandal registers a new sockpuppet, gets it to autoconfirmed status, then attacks the article. Also, the article has relatively low activity, so I expect that there is minimal inconvenience to the community. If there are edits that need to be made, an editprotected request is the way to go. Otherwise, since I'm not really here much any more, please feel free to run it through RFPP for another admin's opinion. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted topic

Hello DoRD, The topic pertaining to Speaker Knockerz, a highly notable hip-hop artist and producer with national airplay, has been deleted for some time now. I believe the reason for deletion is outdated and I would personally like to create the article. To deny that Speaker Knockerz is a notable artist would be absurd. He has produced records for such artists as Meek Mill, 2 Chainz, Pusha T... the list of multi-millionaire artists he has worked with goes on. Most of his own music, as well, surpasses 10+ million views on YouTube. Please let me know how I can go about this, because I feel it is a massive injustice. Jaybird42 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted by several admins per this discussion. Please see WP:REFUND if you wish to contest the deletion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Namaste

Hi DoRD, hope you are doing well. You seem to be inactive for some time (just like me). When are you back? --AmritasyaPutraT 04:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, I saw you have removed the checkuser and oversight right from your user page. Although the user rights log does not show any change. And it does not mention when the rights were assigned either. Perhaps a software quirk. Curious. --AmritasyaPutraT 07:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
CU and OS rights can't be assigned locally - they are assigned by Stewards on meta. My log is here. Anyway, I don't know when (if?) I'll be back to my old level of activity, but I'll probably make a few edits here and there. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hope all is well, and thanks for all your work! (and for all your work in the future, if you decide to come back ) --Rschen7754 03:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is it completely impossible for a CheckUser to connect an account with an open proxy IP? That is, if a named Wikipedia account has been using IPs for the purpose of harassment (strictly defined), can a check user scan reveal a connection between the user account and the IPs, even though they're open proxies? Thanks. BMK (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: A CU reveals all of the IPs used by a named account (for which there is still data). The kind of IP doesn't change that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If someone is using an open proxy to make inappropriate edits, but never editing with their account through that IP, no technical connection can be made. If there are logged-in edits through the open proxy, it's a different story. I'm not a CU now, but if I understand your question correctly, I slightly differ with Bbb23. When I came across edits like you describe, I wouldn't explicitly reveal the connection, but I had no qualms about blocking the IP myself and then stating that the account had been editing through an open proxy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear. I never said I would reveal the connection. I said that when I ran the CU (to me CU is shorthand for the check and CheckUser refers to a person), the IP would be revealed. BMK asked about the "scan" revealing the IP, not about what the CheckUser would reveal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, okay, I understood you as saying that you wouldn't reveal anything. Still need more coffee, perhaps... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
My thanks to both of you, that's very clear now. DoRD, I didn't know you were no longer a CheckUser. I'm sorry to hear that, but I understand that it can be a burden. BMK (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: and DoRD - if I may take up a bit more of your time, given that a CheckUser will not -- and cannot due to policy -- connect an account to IPs (and is that true even in the case of an open proxy, which reveals nothing about the location of the account?), it would seem to me that filing an SPI in that situation is entirely superfluous, since no connection will be revealed, and a block would be a de facto recognition of that connection. Where the open proxy IPs are already blocked for being open proxies, the entire point of getting a CheckUser involved would be to show a connection between the blocked proxies and the account, i.e. to show that the account is responsible for the harassment. In your opinion, does that need to be done via a public SPI or by private correspondence, either with an individual CheckUser or with ArbCom? BMK (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll jump in first and DoRD can give you his three cents if he wishes. The short answer is you open an SPI with a named master and an IP and you let the clerk decide whether there's a behavioral connection. The fact that the IP is an open proxy doesn't change the behavioral analysis. If a CheckUser or administrator notices, they will probably block the open proxy. Independent of the behavioral analysis, if the open proxy isn't blocked, you can always bring it to the attention of any administrator (see, e.g., here).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there would be no behavioral evidence, per se, since there's no data to draw on. 101 variations on "You are a c***" does not provide anything to hang behavioral analysis on. The case, if there were to be a case, would necessarily be entirely circumstantial in nature. The question would be, is there enough circumstantial evidence not to prove anything, but to make it reasonable for a scan to be run, and the scan would then (hopefully) provide the proof. In that circumstance, is an SPI still the best way to go about it? BMK (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the "circumstantial" evidence? You never need sufficient evidence to "prove" the connection. Ultimately, whether provided by the filer or in some other way, there needs to be enough evidence to make it likely that the IP is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The circumstantial evidence would be about the timing of the beginning of the harassing edits following an on-wiki dispute. There could also be, potentially, analysis of the writing of an off-Wiki outing compared to the on-Wiki writing of the editor. BMK (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't know if it would be enough without a concrete case, but timing is behavioral evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much for all this valuable information. I'm going to consider my options. BMK (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Message

Hi DoRD, I dropped you a message a few days ago, just checking if it might have gone into the ether. Thanks, Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I did get your message, but didn't have time then to look at it in depth. Now that I've read it again, I'll tell you that that's not really my area of expertise. You'd be better off taking it to WP:COIN or contacting someone active in that venue. Sorry, but I'm not going to be much help in this situation. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, DoRD. I will take it to COIN. Regards and keep well. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about MuEv

Earlier today, I PRODed MuEv, but when I went to the article's talk page to place the {{Old prod full}} tag, I noticed that you speedy deleted the article in January 2014 per WP:G11. My understanding is that PROD should not be used for articles that have been proposed for deletion in the past. Does this also apply to articles that were re-written after they were deleted? I have a strong sense that this article likely qualifies for deletion (perhaps even speedy deletion), but I want to make sure I follow the proper procedures. Thanks in advance for you help with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, upon further investigation, it appears you may have just deleted the talk page, and not the article itself. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted the talk page because the only content was a spam link. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Well...

Here I am, supposedly trying to take a few steps away from WP. Not doing so hot, am I? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not from your perspective, but from mine - and I'm sure many others - the project will always benefit when you're around.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Just when I was almost beginning to think of you as a clerk ... --Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks - that reminded me to go edit the clerk page. Back to work, I guess. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

CosmicEmperor

Your block here was good. He is obviously a sock of CE. Both this and another account thanked my edits to send me pings at the SPi. Don't know why you unblocked one of them. Appears to be globally locked now anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I unblocked that account because the CU data wasn't strong enough, in my opinion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back!

BMK (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I second that. Good to see you around again! :) Mike V • Talk 16:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thirded. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC).
Unanimoused. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: 2600 IP

My knowledge of the IPv6 is still minor, so thanks, regardless. Mitch32(I can have oodles of charm when I want to.) 21:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Hi, I was wondering whether you could run CheckUser on Secretpolice101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The account filed a single disruptive AfD on an article that had been unsuccessfully AfD'd thrice prior, and hasn't done anything other than that. This feels like a sock created to reprise a notability dispute that had been settled numerous times. Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 13:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to decline the request as it stands for now. Please review the history of the article, and you will probably find enough evidence to start a Sockpuppet investigation, at which point a clerk or CU will decide whether a check is warranted. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Baked Wotsits

Do you have any idea who the LTA is? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Njoidjer. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: YGM. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver/Archive

You may have noticed that I kept trying to use the script to archive this case yesterday. It would hang at the archive editing. So I spent far too much time staring at the archive and looking for what was wrong with it as the script is sensitive to certain kinds of problems. It's a long archive, so I operated on the premise that whatever was wrong had to be recent because others had archived it without apparent problem. Because you're not as pig-headed as I am (smile), you just did it manually. I'm wondering though what will happen the next time and whether I should pursue a more permanent solution. It also gnaws at me that I can't figure it out, but that's just one of the small neuroses I collect just as others collect stamps.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh. I've done the exact same thing a few times myself. After seeing your efforts in the IRC feed, and after banging my head up against that wall too many times previously, I figured that a good old fashioned cut-and-paste was the answer here. I've also spent far too much time trying to figure out what one little thing about a case would hang up Amalthea's bot, but that's another story. Anyway, I don't speak Javascript, so I have never figured out what causes the script to fail like that, but hopefully, now that the case is cleared out, it'll work right next time. And of course, there will be a next time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Language

Hi, DoRD - I think we speak the same language...Texan....although I didn't notice an accent in your posts. -<-@ <----pretend that's a yellow rose. Hope the New Year has started out as expected for you...maybe even exceeds your expectations. Atsme📞📧 02:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I've lived here pretty much all my life. ;) Anyway, thanks, and same to you! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/李建兴

Hi DoRD, just to say that strictly speaking this case can probably be closed with immediate effect (unless that's not the way things are done of course), as the user concerned has just been indef. blocked for disruption and other matters (see the TP history). Of course, if you want to complete the case, I'd like to know if I was right.
Which I was .
Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

As you already noticed, I went ahead and posted my thoughts and closed the case. Cheers. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi concerning sockpuppet investigation for 82.3.238.241 . Why was InternetNavegadora labelled as 'stale' and why didn't you do a check on GirlForTruth? Thanks. --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The SPI clerk asked me to compare the two accounts. If one of them is stale, i.e. there is no CheckUser data available, there is nothing to compare the other to. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought a check user was to compare two IPs... If you don't mind explaining how this works --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's a part of it, but we rarely run a check specifically on IP addresses alone. If the tool can't see any of an account's activity, it cannot determine that account's IP address, so there is nothing on which to base a comparison. There is a page full of information about what the tool does somewhere, but as I am pressed for time, I don't have a link for you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyway --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied

Sent you a mail back in reply. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I received it, but have not had time to do much with it yet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Btw, I just sent you some more. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

Just a question; how does an IP file an SPI? 96.237.18.103 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC) @DoRD:

Sock investigation

Hello! I think this needs your immediate attention as the user keeps on creating new accounts and continous to disruptively edit. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlviennairAkoAyMayLobo (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AkoAyMayLobo. I left some comments on the investigation page. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bwmoll3

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bwmoll3. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox for user warnings

If you rolled over the bold-italic blue-linked indefinite, it would say "Department of Redundancy Department" because of how redundant indefinite is use, and since that's what your username means, I figured adding that joke (the whole warning isn't serious anyway) was suiting. :P Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Unable to add user to SPI

I saw you were recently a CU on the SPI for User:Martimc123 and I wanted to create a new SPI for three users that appear to be socks of this blocked editor, but I was unable to do so. I was getting a "TitleBlacklist" error when trying to create the investigation for User:Rapitoel, User:Paritocrabron and User:Rapitade, all of which appear to be editing in the same exact manner. Can you help out with this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you would be receiving that sort of error message when filing an SPI case. Did you use the procedure on the WP:SPI page? (Click the [show] link next to "How to open an investigation:", fill in the box with "Martimc123" and click Submit, fill the template per the instructions, etc.) If you did that, or still see the error when trying, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I was trying to use Twinkle to create the investigation and it didn't want to go through for me. Thanks for the heads up! RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Mad props to you, User:EvergreenFir, and anyone else involved for confirming Anyali at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Legiallity so fast, even though I only had time to make a rushed ANI report on them yesterday. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove tag

Please remove the "suspected of using multiple accounts" tag from User:Apteva. Multiple accounts are not only permitted but are necessary. This is an alternative account, that is used in a permissible manner. The accusations of sockpuppetry occurred without my knowledge and while I was blocked so that I could not defend them. When I was blocked on enwiki, I did only one thing. Continue editing on other wikis and wait to be unblocked. Apteva (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Apteva: The tagging I did has was removed by an SPI clerk back in July, as can be seen in the page history. The remaining tag was added by a mobile IP, so feel free to remove it yourself. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If you could help re: a block evasion

I'm afraid that blocked User:Optim.usprime has been edit-warring with two registered editors, myself and one other, yesterday and today at Dave Brockie under his anon IP, 74.88.32.47. I thought as the admin issuing his indefinite block that you should be alerted. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Since it appears that they have used that IP for quite some time, I gave it a nice long block, and if I hadn't just now noticed what was on the IP talk page, I would have done so sooner. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Rasputin

Hi DoRD, your input would be highly valuable here Thanks for your time. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

You should probably check user:More sóckpuppets to revert for any sleeper sock puppets. 2602:306:3357:BA0:296E:B120:F444:9E29 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything is already blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi DoRD, could you please have a look on this issue (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onegyrol08), since you still dealt with apparently the former same user. --Bartleby08 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, please, i agree with him, check and verify that we are not the same person, my ips are different than his for sure, further comments of mine in Bartleby08's talk page, who is anyway committing vandalism beause he keeps removing content without reasonOnegyrol08 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
well Onegyrol08, actually it was you who vandalized my reverts of a blocked user, who by matter of facts has been blocked for his crazy addings... In repeating exactly the same actions as bolgitialissimo, as you did, and IMHO mimicking my username, you are providing a lot of evidence for possibly blocking just you as well --Bartleby08 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
everything is explained in that talk page of yours, but i am going to reply here too: i have controlled bolgitialissimo's block, he wasn't blocked for vandalisms but because a checkuser verified he was a fake or something, his edits were not vandalisms, adding ipa to italian cities is not vandalism, removing them just because they were inserted by a fake is not a valid reason, if they were wrong then they could have been removed, but since they are right they have to stay, or are you one of those separatists and do not accept that south tyrolean cities have also an italian name and pronunciation?!Onegyrol08 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I will try to look at the case some time later - I will need to do some digging around in logs first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanx DoRD, and it is not very urgent -- and something for Onegyrol08: you don't do yourself a favour by trying to insulting me ("or re you one of those separatists etc etc"), but everything is forgiven ;-) --Bartleby08 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@ DoRD one chance out of a million bolgitialissimo had an ip identical to mine, in that case or in case i am blocked for something else i am not interested in losing this account, just in Bartleby08 to stop removing contents, if you want you can block the account now and check later, i do not need it for reverting vandalisms...@ Bartleby08 a question: then what is your explanation for keeping removing correct contents from articles? tell me, i am curious, just do not say that it is because the user who made those correct edits was blocked, please!Onegyrol08 (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The explanation is as simple as this: you shouldn't (re-)insert asymmetric information as you did. At least not, unless you are nor also adding the german pronunciation of the name under which it is correctly listed. But since you did not, you are revealing a bias, which your further comments on me ("separatists") are likely to be confirming. Bartleby08 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
so the answer is that you do it following your personal opinion, nowhere in this site there is a rule saying what you argued, it is just you saying that if there is no german pronunciation then there must not be any italian one, and acting like that is vandalism, moreover if you wanted to contribute you should have added the german pronunciation instead of removing the italian one, since you did not you proved that it is you the one acting not to emprove this encyclopedia but just for personal and possibly related to your place of birth reasons, you should just stop itOnegyrol08 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Some help here

Hi DoRD. If you're not too busy, could you check out this rather complicated problem? User_talk:[email protected]#Recent_warning_of_an_IP. 166.173.250.0 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI Troll

Hello,

Hope all's well. Recently, I understand that SPI has been seeing a new troll who has been impersonating CUs. If you don't mind my asking, who might the master puppet be? It is a really weird trend that I don't think I have seen before. Thanks, GABHello! 19:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is an example of what GAB is asking about DoRD. If I am wrong please disregard or even remove since it will be confusing the issue. MarnetteD|Talk 20:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the one, thank you for providing the link. GABHello! 20:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really sure who it is, but they've been dealt with, at least for the time being. At any rate, this sort of trolling has been going on longer than this particular miscreant has been around. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the mail

Hey DorD,

Was my email of some time ago which you asked me to send of any use? Regarding those IP's?

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, even after discussing it with another CU, the additional information wasn't of much use to us. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Hi DoRD. I was going to contact User:Bbb23 about this, but it seems he's taking a break. He dealt with a previous sockpuppetry case here:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso/Archive

I've noticed two users with very similar editing patterns as User:Mario Maraschi (one of Giubbotto's sockpuppets) on the Back to Sleep (song) page:

They are both making the same edits as Mario Maraschi on the page, and were both created after he was blocked indefinitely. In addition, Colui che beve la colla vinilica says his name is Giovanni Muciaccia, which bares an uncanny resemblance to the names Giubbotto and Maraschi. And Just editing with a smile spelt the word irrelevant as "irrilevant", which is the exact same spelling that Mario Maraschi previously used for that same word. Is it possible to look into whether these two accounts are related to Giubbotto and Mario Maraschi? Thanks. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Maestro2016: Please file a sockpuppetry case here. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: Thanks for filing the SPI - I have processed the case and posted my findings there. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi. There is an IP that you may want to check: 74.99.146.113 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Same city and interests as the blocked user Noneof_yourbusiness48. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoRD/Archive_10&oldid=1151039694"