Jump to content

User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 8    Archive 9    Archive 10 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  ... (up to 100)


Something you said...

...To Flyer22 was that "You are not allowed to revert other user more than three times just because you believe he is a sockpuppet of blocked user."

At Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions, it says that "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is not counted toward 3RR.

For your information. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Yes, but there is great difference between a "sockpuppet of banned user" and a "user whom I believe is a sockpuppet of banned user". You may not revert other user's edits more than three times just because you believe he's a sockpuppet. He has to be proven a sockpuppet before you are free to revert him. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that detail in the guideline. If a blocked person creates a sockpuppet, he is immediately a "sockpuppet of a blocked user", with or without an investigation into the matter. I would not like to do things your way and give the block-evading person all the time that it takes for a sockpuppet case to conclude, letting that person disrupt Wikipedia for a few days. I would much rather protect the encyclopedia by repeatedly reverting the sock as necessary, all with the understanding that the sock will soon be blocked pending the conclusion of the SPI case. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: I agree that a sock is a sock as soon as he creates an account. But, I do not agree that you yourself can know who is a sock and who is not immediately, without discussing the matter with other users. Sometimes socking is obvious, but in this particular case it was not obvious at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this and your statement that triggered this discussion. Of course you can know who is a sock without discussing the matter with other users. CUs, admins, and clerks do not have a monopoly on common sense. If 2.7.4.34 starts editing after 2.7.4.31 is blocked I don't need to run to another editor to tell me that's a sock. Same thing goes for FluffyDuffy56 taking over for FluffyDuffy54, or a new editor signing with another editor's signature (as I came across yesterday), or a myriad of other ways experienced editors can tell they're dealing with a sock. In my experience, the 3RR sock exemption follows the vandalism sock exemption. If, after given an explanation, any uninvolved well-intentioned editor can see there's socking going on with a minimum of effort, the exemption applies. --NeilN talk to me 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: That is exactly what I said above: Sometimes, socking is obvious. In those cases it is OK to revert sockpuppet's edits. Sometimes, socking is not obvious. In those cases it is not OK to revert. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is arguing that a non-CU can immediately tell XYZ is a sock of ABC upon account creation. But non-CU's can tell immediately after the first edit in some cases. You need to qualify and carefully explain your statements when you're working at SPI. --NeilN talk to me 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed WP:3RR violation

Vanjagenije, will you revert this to allow me to reply to you there, on the record? I did not break the WP:3RR rule. This is not only because I did not revert more than three times (I reverted twice; a WP:Dummy edit is not a revert), but because reverting WP:Blocked or WP:Banned editors is a WP:3RR exemption. WP:Blocked does not simply apply to the account(s); it applies to the person; same goes for WP:Banned. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that Binksternet replied to you about this above. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22: There is no need to de-archive the page because of that. We can discuss it here. As I said above, you should not revert other user's edits just because you believe him being a sockpuppet, you have to be sure that he is a sockpuppet, and in this case, you couldn't be sure. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need to de-archive since you accused me of breaking the WP:3RR rule when I did not, and when you are misapplying the WP:3RR policy, which will be believed by less experienced editors. I knew that the editor in question was a WP:Sockpuppet; an editor would have to be an idiot not to know that he is a WP:Sockpuppet. Editors (including WP:Administrators) revert obvious WP:Sockpuppets on the basis that they are WP:Sockpuppets all the time. I am one of those editors. If you do not de-archive the case so that I can set this record straight, I will make an even bigger deal out of this by taking this matter to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22: I apologize, you did not brake the WP:3RR because you reverted three times, not four. I did not see that your fourth edit was not a revert. But, I will not de-archive the SPI case, as the SPI is not a place to discuss 3RR or anything else except sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time of your "19:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)" comment, I took this matter to WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, like I stated above, I reverted that WP:Sockpuppet two times. A WP:Dummy edit is not a revert. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the big fuss I made here, in a section that was closed down in two different spots, I did get suggestions via email that I should just reply in the archive since editors (not just WP:Administrators) are replying in the archive of this other WP:Sockpuppet investigation. If it's the case that I am allowed to do that, then having known that obviously would have been a good thing days ago. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are CUs leaving info in an archive rather than necessitating the opening of a new report...and regular editors are responding there. Not a good precedent. Clerks and CUs are the only ones that should comment in an archive. Really, there is no need...nothing is being held over your head about it. Water under the bridge.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22: As I know, it is not good practice to leave comments at the archives, and the comment you cited was later removed [1]. Anyway, I don't care if you edit the archive, I will certainly not make any reaction to that. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Berean Hunter noted the inappropriateness of the non-CUs leaving comments there, and that DoRD took action on the matter. This clears up things for those who were under the impression that commenting in WP:Sockpuppet archives is generally fine. That stated, I feel like a snitch in this regard, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definitely feel like a snitch now. Anyway, I am done discussing this matter. Thanks to all who helped sort my feelings on WP:3RR and wanting to clarify things. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I have a gut feeling; that all of them are not ZORDANLIGHTER . We need @DoRD: 's view, as everybody is tagged for one S-Master . DoRD's Check User investigation results are not conclusive about the S-Master ----- according to his statement :-(ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master) ----- .The only confirmed case is WRONGLY ACCUSED THIS TIME . There is a Invisible Man here who seems to be more clever than ZORDANLIGHTER. Till then, please don't close the case . Any way it's up to you to take the Final decision--CosmicEmperor (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicEmperor: It was Mike V who tagged زوردانلگهتر, ਬਬਿਤਾ ਅਰੋਰਾ and কসমিক এম্পারার as socks of Undertrialryryr. I just followed him and tagged others (ДфтпгфпуЧзуке, หทหฟพทฟก, etc.) as the socks of the same master. Based on the behavior, I think they are all Undertrialryryr, but, of course, I can't be sure. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to detect the languages through google translate , as their software can detect language.Then I will translate all the names and comments. Not here , but on the talk page of SPI ZORDANLIGHTER --CosmicEmperor (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Vanjagenije. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Amazing work on sockpuppet investigations. RedPanda25 13:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI:Factocop

Heh Vanjagenije, You have removed some of my counter arguments and evidence at the Factocop page without removing the initiating points made by Murry1975. How come? He accused me of edit warring. I present evidence that I do not edit war and you remove it. That is not very neutral. Can you reinstate evidence. TY.Dubs boy (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubs boy: I'm just currently working on that case. I'd like to ask you to wait for a few minutes till I finish. Vanjagenije (talk)
Sorry. But I've learned a new skill. Did not know the @ symbol did that. TY.Dubs boy (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dubs boy: Did what? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know the @ symbol notified a user. Wikipedia maneuvering itself for a takeover from Twitter.Dubs boy (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the "@" that notifies the user, but the {{ping}} template. See: WP:Notifications. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI: Hstudent

Could you please tell me what additional evidence I am required to produce for this case other than the additional evidence that I have supplied? I think it was a clear attempt from Hstudent to force a change in consensus after the deadline was reached. To me this shows that the losing party is trying to alter the consensus in their favour - because their side of the argument wasn't the consensus that was voted for

On the two occasions in that discussion I have mentioned my suspicions that the same person owns both accounts - neither account has made a single attempt to deny my accusation and has totally avoided addressing my suspicions - Coradia175 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not comment the SPI case here on my talk page. We should keep the discussion on one place, otherwise it would be very hard to follow the discussion fragmented over different pages. I'm going to answer your concerns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hstudent. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily indefinitely blocked

I blocked you indefinitely for your egregious behavior — and then I saw that I'd blocked the wrong person! I'm sorry! I've unblocked you, and aside from the block log (which nobody should hold against you, given my unblock timing and summary), there's no damage done. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: OK, I understand. :-) I've been a racist for a minute. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the select club of mistakenly blocked editors! We have a support group that meets every Friday evening, kind of like a block party. Bring your own virtual food and drink.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're the first person with the to-be-coveted {{User accidentally blocked}} userbox. Congratulations :-) Feel free to remove it if you don't want it. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, two months ago I made Chasewc91 suffer the same fate. I also did this to Ryulong just hours before ArbCom indef'ed him (for real this time). Even users at the pinnacle of adminship like Nyttend and myself can make the occasional mistake. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks a lot. Now I am a certified victim. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happened to me also. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz

Hi Vanja, I responded to your question at this SPI about ten days ago. Perhaps you didn't get the notification? Could you take a look at it again? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Sorry, I forgot that one. Anyway, I don't think there is enough evidence of sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't see why you shouldn't close it yourself rather than recommending that it be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

regarding my page Gaurav agnihotri

Hello,

I read the introductory message that you posted. Thanks for it. However, please note that I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines about writing an article. Also, i have provided all genuine links and references about my work. Hope my article sticks and other users improve it. Regards,


Gaurav Agnihotri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaurav81184 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaurav81184: If you have read guidelines, than probably you noticed this one: WP:AUTO. It says that "writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community". So, you obviously did not follow all the guidelines, since you wrote an autobiography. I advice you to stop editing about yourself and to let other Wikipedia editors to that. Wikipedia has a certain inclusion criteria called "WP:Notability". Only people whom Wikipedia defines as "notable" are allowed to have articles about themselves. If you are really notable, there would be somebody to edit your article, you do not need to do that. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppet of E4024

See here. Thank you. --92slim (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic2030

It is not yet closed.[2] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I don't really understand what you want to say. It is closed as I see. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about my last message that I have posted over there? Kindly comment and keep it opened so that we can know what you or DoRD thinks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: As I see, your last message is a question for DoRD. He can still answer it. The fact that the case is closed does not prevent him from answering your question. The case is not archived yet, so more comments can still be added. It is just not useful to keep the case open, when all suspects are either blocked or stale. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to do on that case, OccultZone. The last edit you pointed out is in no way a violation of any policy I can think of, so to prevent further add-on evidence, I've archived the case. If you have current, credible, actionable evidence, you can submit another case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply DoRD, we are done with this case for now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW @DoRD: when I asked on SPI, if we should still treat the IPs as socks, I meant that per WP:DENY, which tells you to revert(except vandalism, BLPvio, copyvio) as many times until the sock gives up. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mailed you twice in 2 cases

Hello, Vanjagenije. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive

Hello,

Sorry for my english. I don't know how work sockpuppet investigations pages, so I prefer to notify you: I blocked this IP adress 190.149.21.85 (global user contributions) this morning on fr.wiki.

Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is all settled, as I don't understand a word. :-) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a notification that this particular troublemaker went cross-wiki; I added the crosswiki=yes parameter to the case template. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo closure!!!

I have written some stuff, come take a look! [3] --Munja-x86 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I misread your spi comment - you did not use the letter "a" and thus wrote something subject to complete misinterpretation. I was about to delete when I saw it had already been deleted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ LACABL - SPI question

Hello Vanjagenije, is it possible to withdraw an open (but not yet worked on) SPI-request? The linked case is just a minor problem (compared to other SPI cases), most of the accounts' "contributions" have been deleted anyway via AfD and they only edit very rarely or are semi-stale. If it is possible, I would like to withdraw that request - I am sure, the SPI-team has bigger fish to fry in other cases. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: Of course. You can use {{Withdraw}}. But, I'm going to close the case for you. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Learned something new :), thanks for the close and your continuous work on SPI-cases. GermanJoe (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original sockmaster

A)- Remember, in this SPI DoRD mentioned "ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master."

Technically they were not matching with Undertrialryryr. And i found their editing very different from the previous accounts.You accepted you are not sure but they were tagged "Based on the behavior".


B)- AHLM13's account abused Babitaarora in the same mannerকসমিক এম্পারার attacked her, {私はあなたにを愛し did the same thing, unknown ip, another Undertrialryryr sock


C)- Now today these three proxy IPs disrupted talkpages claiming to be AHLM13, but AHLM13 doesn't speak like that. AHLM13 is Pakistani. How can he use Bengali swear words and Bengali colloquial language.

I- 27.34.251.164

II- 49.156.159.82

III- 14.139.56.13

Now check the last line of this offensive comment on Titodutta's talk page by কসমিক এম্পারার which is very similar to this edit made today by 14.139.56.13 . Those who can read Bengali will understand that they are same.

All three are proxy IPs, as i checked them on internet IP Location finder and they must be blocked indefinitely, not for few hours or one week.


D)- Same guy who removed Babitaarora's complain on Materialscientist's talk page about Undertrialryryr socks. I am sure this is not Undertrialryryr.


E)- Unblock request by 115ash is the same comment he made on Ged UK's talk page with IP-78.149.203.69, and this IP is similar to this IP-78.149.127.141 which we believe is AHLM13 as we found that his English is similar to AHLM13.


F)- If we check the contributions of Undertrialryryr, ZORDANLIGHTER, Blackwizard2000, Enterths300000, Whistlingwoods, Championkiller and vandal account BLACKIEHINDU

They don't match with the contributions and editing style of these sock accounts in other languages.

later on few socks whose names were in Punjabi language attacked Babitaarora. Their offensive comments and edit history were deleted by Materialscientist,Yunshui and Albertsquare. They were tagged as Undertrialryryr socks. I don't know whether the Ips were same or most obviously the same reason previous socks were blocked due to behavioral evidence. Once DoRD told me that personal details of any user can't be made public which includes IP address, but Check user should at least tell whether these latest sockaccounts : ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ, Lundbaaz King Shaan Shahid, Pakistani girl's breasts, ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ and ਕਾਸ੍ਮਿਕ ਏਮ੍ਪੇਰੋਰ matches with the IPs of

Undertrialryryr, ZORDANLIGHTER, Blackwizard2000,

or they match with unconfirmed socks written in other languages.C E (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicEmperor: I understand your concerns, but I don't understand what do you expect me to do? All those socks are blocked. Is it really so important to determinate who is the master? We have a huge backlog of unsolved SPIs, and I don't think we can afford to waste our time on Undertrialryryr, or whoever he might be. Please, don't take this as a comment on your work, you made an excellent investigation. But I feel that it is really not so important to know the master as long as the socks are blocked and their disruption is prevented. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning JrolesGuy

Have a look at Uhyeahright (talk · contribs)'s contributions. Given the user was just involved in an SPI, this concerns me. What do you think? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6: Yes, I've seen him. But, with just one edit, we can't prove anything. It may be a schoolmate. We should wait and look at him. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, thank you for your help concerning the amygdalin page...I am trying to get a better understanding of the many, many different ways to communicate with everyone on Wikipedia in regards to the factual content of pages I refer people to for info.

I would very much be interested in the Group Editing if it comes about since most of the mis-information I've found on many Wikipedia pages comes not from people wanting to mis-inform but from their not being up to date on new research done in the last two years.

A lot of research done when I was at IU Bloomington in the very early 1970's is still being quoted as gospel even though new research techniques have corrected a lot of wrong assumptions made back then. Watson & Crick were my Genetics professors for two semesters 1970-71 at IU and even then I thought they were out of date!

Thank you again! It was very kind of you to spend the time to help me out. Will

Will Wiegman (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Central Intelligence Agency

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Intelligence Agency. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Antasari

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Antasari. Thanks. Gparyani (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Vanjagenije. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Antasari.
Message added 20:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gparyani (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tirgil34

Hi, Vanjagenije. I'm sure you remember the extensive SPI against Tirgil34 back in February-March. Lately some of the suspected socks denied a check have become very active and exhibited ducky behaviour. Compare this[4] with this.[5][6] New socks also seem to have appeared. Compare this[7] with this.[8][9][10][11][12] I'm considering to initiate another SPI with new evidence against Tirgil34 concerning both newly and previously suspected socks. Would that be considered inappropriate? Krakkos (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: Sure, why not. Just stick to those accounts for which there is strong and convincing evidence. Avoid accusing accounts just because they have similar point of view. Only accuse them if they made substantially similar edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, i've now launched a new investigation. Evidence is based on various WP:Signs of sock puppetry. Finding rock solid evidence is hard, as Tirgil34 is deliberatly refraining from leaving that; see how his sock Dashte Qom (talk · contribs) tried to cover his tracks after i launched a Tirgil34 investigation earlier.[13][14][15] My earlier request on Grathmy (talk · contribs) based on behavioural analysis was initially rejected, but Grathmy's recent quack at Andronovo culture indicates that i was right.[16][17][18] Please have more faith in me this time... If a check is endorsed for this investigation, is there a possibility that DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) could perform the check? He has certain experience with checking Tirgil34 and seems to be quite good at this. Cheers. Krakkos (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to endorse the WP:Checkuser jut because I trust you. I need to have proper, convincing evidence. I will review the case later, when I find more time. You may ask DeltaQuad to take a look, that is not forbidden, of course. But, he's been inactive for a week, so he may not answer soon enough. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeltaQuad has now noted on the SPI page that he has checked several of the suspects before. I'm aware that Akocsg (talk · contribs) was checked previously against Vgleer (talk · contribs). Does the check of Akocsg against Vgleer make a check against Tirgil34 redundant? Out of the six suspects endorsed in the previous case it's only Akocsg who is listed again. Were in fact all the non-stale non-endorsed socks also checked? Krakkos (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: I don't know. Maybe DeltaQuad performed some checks on his own. CheckUsers are allowed to conduct checks even when not requested by other users. New check is always possible if we have new, strong evidence (that is the answer to your first question). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that you've created a separate list for stale suspects, including all the suspected IP socks. I've read that accounts are considered stale after roughly three months of inactivity. Are there different guidelines for IP's? Krakkos (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos: Yes. IPs are often dynamic. That means that internet providers assign the same IP address to several people in turn. That is way we only block IPs if there is current disruption (like in the last few days), or if there is long-term disruption. But, even then, IPs are usually blocked for a short time (few days) to prevent innocent people being blocked if the IP gets assigned to another person. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case you won't notice i've adressed this issue at the talk page of Mike V. Krakkos (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user who i suspect is engaged in meatpuppetry with Tirgil34. Should relevant info be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 or somewhere else? Also, when CheckUsers list suspects as confirmed, likely, possible etc, is that only based on technicalities or also behaviour? What is the difference between confirmed and technically indistinguishable? Krakkos (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: If you have evidence that user is engaged in illegal meatpuppetry, feel free to add that to the report. CheckUser investigations are based solely on technical data (IP adress, type of web browser, etc.). Behavioral investigation is completely different kind of investigation. There is no real difference between "confirmed" and "technically indistinguishable". "Technically indistinguishable" means that two accounts are operated from the same computer. "Confirmed" means that they are operated from the same IP address (might be two computers in the same household). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked further at the Ancientsteppe SPI, i've found that Daduxing is probably not a sock of Ancientsteppe. Daduxing speaks Romanian[19] and neither Russian nor Mongolian, while Ancientsteppe speaks both Russian[20] and Mongolian[21] while not Romanian. I'm sorry for wasting your time. Krakkos (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI help

Can you figure out, why this SPI report I filled out (using twinkle) almost 2 hours back doesn't show up in the Cases currently listed at SPI table? Is the bot on a fritz or did I make some formatting/procedural error ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(tpw) Abecedare, it looks like Amalthea's bot is on the fritz - it hasn't updated the case list in over two hours, even though cases are being edited. DQ's list is up to date, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DoRD. Just wanted to be sure that it was not some error I made. Will drop the bot operator a note in case they are aware of the problem. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works again, thanks! Amalthea 08:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare, DoRD, and Amalthea: Thanks, I'm glad it's all OK now. I was not there to help. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ertanguven

fyi, The archiving left no link to the archive. Bazj (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: It happens. Sometimes, it needs more than an hour for the link to appear. It already happened to me few times. See here: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcallister2412. We should wait for some time for the link to appear. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered that, despite a couple of my own edits needing a forced reload before they'd show up. Something's running really slow today. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazj: I see the link now. Is it also OK with you? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can, thanks. Strange behaviour from the wiki. Bazj (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sun

Hi Vanja, I saw you removed my part about the Black Sun. Why is that irrelevant? Marek brought it up, why can't I defend myself? I really don't understand. Maybe Wikipedia is just not for me. Confused regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mondschein English: WP:Sockpuppet investigation is an investigation of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is the (forbidden) practice of using multiple user accounts for illegitimate purposes (see: WP:Sockpuppetry). So, those investigations are only about using multiple accounts, IPs, etc. Everything else is totally irrelevant (including the Black Sun). I strongly advice you to read this carefully: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims. As an SPI Clerk, I removed irrelevant comments from the investigation page, so to make it shorter and easier to understand. SPI Clerks are permitted to remove "any material by any user that is not strictly relevant to SPI" (see here: Wikipedia:SPI/PROC#Patrolling). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanja, I did read it and I realize I have nothing to worry about: I don't even know who the other accounts are, let alone am I one of them. My IP addresses will show it. I am from Oregon and currently on vacation, but sure as heck I will not even think about visiting Poland, Ukraine, etc. Frankly, what really rubbed me the wrong way was being accused of sockpuppetry by a person, the guy who claimed I am indeed a sock puppet, who had not even exchanged one word with me, yet. Then his friend came to my personal page and alluded at the same thing writing a ridiculously long soliloquy. How annoying. Anyway, if that what floats their boats, I will let them bark at me, who cares, Wikipedia is just a hobby for me. Take care, --Mondschein English (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your hard work at SPI

The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarded to Vanjagenije in appreciation of the hard work and diligent service while assisting with sockpuppet investigations.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter and Salvidrim!: Thank you very much. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tankosic

Hello this place this village called " Dardani " not called " Tankosic" Please change the page :((( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetullah Mustafa (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetullah Mustafa: Wikipedia only accepts information that is sourced in reliable sources (see: WP:VERIFY). Please, provide reliable sources to prove that the name of the village has been changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: : check the wikipedia albanian and french and see the name "Dardani" or check the google maps and see the name "Dardani" ( sorry for bad english )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetullah Mustafa (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetullah Mustafa: Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not consider itself to be reliable (see: WP:CIRCULAR). I don't know about Google maps. Anyway, if you think the name of the article should be moved from "Tankosić" to "Dardani", you should go to Talk:Tankosić and propose a move. See here how to propose move: WP:RM. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you take of the albanian names of the villages in leposavic???— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadribistrica (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadribistrica: I replied to you on your talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why cant i put in albanian villages??? why do you delete them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadribistrica (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadribistrica: Plese, I replied to you on your talk page (User talk:Kadribistrica). If you have any questions, ask there, so that the whole discussion is on one place. And, don't use the {{ping}} template to ping yourself, it's useles. You should sign every post with a signature (See: WP:SIGN). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhaah u serious orthodox church in bistrica haahahahh. Wow how can someone lie like that, u did it really good how you changed everything haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadribistrica (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadribistrica: Please, watch your language! If you are talking about the Šaljska Bistrica article, the church part was non added by me, but by Zoupan ([22]). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete the articel about the church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadribistrica (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadribistrica: Why? Because you say it's a lie? That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia needs WP:Verifiability. Every statement in every article should be supported by wp:references to reliable sources. When Zoupan made that edit [23], he also added a reference to a book. Do you have any reliable source to prove that he is wrong? And, please, start signing your posts. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know much about wikipedia and how it works, im sorry if im bothering you. But it doesent make sense that u can write an articel without showing the page of the bok that says about the thing that zoupan just write. I know that he showed the book, but i dont know if he is talking the truth. Tell him to show the page if he CAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadribistrica (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadribistrica: The page is cited in the article: "Kalezić 2002, p. 197.", means that it is page number 197. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

spi

I made a comment there, but it was not meant to refer to you specifically, but as my general comment about the procedures. I recognize you're doing it in the usual way. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Sorry, I don't do all those fancy template thingies to pass on my appreciation - but I do want to thank you for all of your work at SPI. I was mostly doing other things for a couple of months and not working at SPI, but whenever I peeked in I would see you busily working away.  :) Risker (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Thanks a lot. I just wanted to contact you about one (small) issue. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChrisRock1998, you changed the status of the case to "CUMOREINFO"[24]. Now, the purple tag on that page reads "user has requested CheckUser, but a CheckUser requires more information..." But, no user has requested CheckUser, so that might be misleading. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. All these pretty templates and colours. Feel free to change it to a template that you think is more appropriate. I just picked that one because, well, I'm a checkuser looking for more information... Risker (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije, about this -- I get the feeling we need a new status: "more info requested" (by clerks and/or CU) when there wasn't originally a CUrequest. Right now we're stuck with leaving them either "open" or "onhold" (but that's meant for other situations). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim!: Yes, that is a good idea. Msybe we should try to reach consensus at Wikipedia talk:SPI to introduce that new status. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your..

--Rrjedha 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC) No Thank you edit my care and understandable warnings and interventions were in text...

Help

I know you have been doing a great job at hunting socks, and that was something I never really used t report much, but now I have a problem.

Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made lots of problems and got indef blocked (see his tal page). While he was still active, once unintentionall he wrote a comment on my talk page withut being logged in, it was this one: diff. See the IP and its geolocation. He was indef blocked but this another IP turned in those same Tesla discussions IP 141.136.243.205 with samegeolocation. Clear case of block evasion, right? FkpCascais (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FkpCascais: As I can see, the IP is now blocked. Is that all? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is all. Sorry to bother you but that user has been causing much trouble. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing and search for sleepers

I don't understand the difference between fishing and searching for sleepers. Fishing is not allowed but search for sleepers is allowed, why? Can you please tell me the difference? Supdiop (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Supdiop: Sleepers search is conducted when there is strong evidence that a person is engaged in sockpuppetry. For example, if several accounts are found and there is strong evidence that they are operated by the same person, one may suspect that there may be more accounts that are not yet detected. In that case, a sleepers check is appropriate. Fishing is a practice of running a CheckUser check to find sockpuppets without strong evidence of sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I get it. Thank you Supdiop (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the SPI of User:Korynigel

I remembered earlier that there was another account performing the same kind of vandalism before this one, User:Tentshikes. That user, in turn, was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Frank8188, so it looks like we have two cases going for accounts that are all presumably the same person. These cases should probably be merged somehow so that it's clear that they're all one editor's socks, rather than appearing to be two separate cases. dalahäst (let's talk!) 00:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalahäst: Yes, you are right, they are all the same. But, what two cases are you talking about? I see just one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korynigel. What other case should be merged with that one? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: Zzuuzz tagged Korynigel as a sock of Random-5000, and it seams that he is right (compare [25] and [26]). I found this case: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AtlanticDeep/Archive#25 April 2011 in which Zzuuzz says that he "confirmed socks of User:Random-5000 / User:AtlanticDeep". Now, are Random-5000 and AtlanticDeep the same (I can't find any confirmation)? Should this (Korynigel) case be merged with the AtlanticDeep case? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on bureaucracy. See the backlinks to the userpage, specifically Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Random-5000. The edits.. the edits.. You might also want to look at several New Zealand IPs I blocked a few hours ago. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zzuuzz: What about the connection between Random-5000 and AtlanticDeep? Are they the same or not? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It dawned on me here: User_talk:Alison/Archive_36#Question. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't actually a separate case for Tentshikes / Frank8188, but the templates on their pages suggest that they aren't connected with Korynigel, which is pretty obviously false; it initially seemed to me that Korynigel should also be identified as a sock of Frank8188, not a sockpuppeteer in his own right (seeing as that case was created after the initial vandalism); the issue is that the Korynigel case wasn't ever connected with the earlier incidents. But now there's this Random-5000 that I hadn't seen before, which has at least made similar edits. Unusually, though, Random-5000 was blocked in 2007, and now we're seeing the same kinds of edits from a string of new sockpuppets. Could this be an inside joke from another website that's spilling over into Wikipedia (e.g. a "hey, let's vandalize these articles!" forum post)? Then there is also this diff from the Spanish Wikipedia where the same vandalism was perpetrated in 2010. This page gives a children's rhyme upon which the vandalism may be based, but I have a hard time believing there isn't some coordination to all of this. Hell, perhaps the accounts aren't sockpuppets at all, and meatpuppets instead. dalahäst (let's talk!) 10:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalahäst: I propose we just forget about this Random-5000/AtlanticDeep thing. It is hard (and not necessary) to connect those new accounts with those old ones. We should just move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korynigel to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frank8188, as Frank8188 is tge oldest of those (new) accounts, and retag all those new accounts as socks of Frank8188. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. As it is, the accounts may not actually all be owned by the same person if this is a 'group effort' of sorts, so there's no need to actually connect every single one of them. The ones within the last few days that have been popping up certainly have some close connection, so that may as well be sufficient. dalahäst (let's talk!) 10:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dalahäst:  Done. They are now classified under Frank8188. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Anyway, for future reference, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive272#A_ghostly_sockpuppet. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: Should we re-tag all of those as socks of Random-5000? I see that you took some part in this. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben0kto/Archive

I've blocked two more IP socks. [27], [28] Worth adding a new SPI report to record or don't bother? --NeilN talk to me 20:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: No, it's not necessary at all. Especially, since those are IP socks, so they are not useful for future CheckUser checks. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your assistance. AcidSnow (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben0kto

Hey, thanks for letting me know that I can block the IPs. I was worried that I was a little too close to everything to block them on my own, so this will save a lot of time in the long run. I figure block them for about a month apiece if this happens again, then longer if they reappear under the same IP? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: As I know, it is not forbidden for an involved administrator to block an obvious sockpuppet. But, I'm not really sure about that, maybe you should check it with some of the CheckUsers. IPs are usuualy blocked for three days at the beggining, and then for a week if the socking continues, and so on. But, if it is obvious that the IP is static, it may be blocked for a longer time after the first issue. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudalus?

Hi Vanjagenije,

Where did you find Dudalus? I'm now concerned that he isn't forthcoming about other accounts. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: User account Scientus was created by Dudalus [29]. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admirenepal

I am beginning to suspect User:Poojjan ccresta‎ is user:Admirenepal. Has anyone checked their sockpuppetry patterns? Ogress smash! 20:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: We should wait for Ponyo to comment. She is familiar with those two cases. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I tagged her as well. I'm just not familiar with the procedures for socks, which are incidentally a huge drain on everyone's time. Slight rant: I don't understand why WMP hasn't found a way to help us deal with this extremely tiresome and seemingly endless problem. There must be some way to auto-manage some of this. It takes up a lot of my time to work through all the bureaucracy that honestly feels very 18th century. Some of it could be invisibly handled by autoprocesses that detect shared IP abuse and reports it. I spend so much time fighting and reported editors who turn out just to be socks of one of the apparently endless sockmasters who are sometimes professionals working for corporations, politicians or governments. It's a waste of bandwidth and everyone's time to have to go through a multiple-step program to identify them after behavior pops up when half of them could have been preemptively caught by programs that then alerted admins for investigations. Sorry, rant over. Ogress smash! 20:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you Vanjagenije, I responded on my talk. There is additional discussion in my archives regarding the possibility that the two masters are actually the same person. If there is a behavioural divide between the two it's that Admirenepal seems to focus primarily on "Poudar" while Poojjan ccressta edits are more inclusive of Nepalese ethnic history and culture in general. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on Ponyo's talkpage, I was only asking because merging the cases might enable us to locate further socks, as I know for a fact they've got a few running (they have been tweaking my nose on my talk page about how pointless sock reports are). Ogress smash! 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence needed at SPI

See also: User_talk:Ruigeroeland § Stern_Review

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stern review~enwiki, every time Ruigeroeland reports a new batch of socks (which happens with tedious regularity: this is one determined pain in the butt!), he does so with the simple "DUCK" claim. I understand that in most cases this is highly insufficient, but this particular case is so clear-cut: the sock farm in question is always identified behaviorally based on the creation of multiple one-line articles about moths. When you mark such cases for "more information needed" are you strictly adhering to policy, or are you truly not remembering the nature of this sock farm (understandable given the number of SPIs you deal with). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned to Ruigeroeland that he should provide fuller SPI reports, noting your workload at SPI and the likelihood you can't keep the details of all the sockmasters memorized. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: Do you really think it is possible for me to remember all those cases just by name? It would be enough from him just to write a short explanation, few words, nothing more, so that I can understand what case we are talking about. That is much easier than to expect from me to look at the history of the case and review archives every single time. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I will do in future. What info would you like to have when I report? I usually don't deal with vandalism on Wikipedia, but since this guy is active in my specific 'niche', I'm am forced to I'm afraid. Your help in deleting his contributions is highly appreciated though..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruigeroeland: There are no special requirements. Just imagine that your report is read by somebody who never heard about the Stern_review~enwiki case and knows nothing about it. You just need to write a short explanation, a sentence or two, explaining the similarity between the master and the sock. If they make similar edits, or write similar edit summaries, you should cote WP:diffs as evidence. If they create similar pages, you should cite (some) titles of those pages as evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruigeroeland: The simple, one-sentence explanation I have added to your last several reports should suffice as part of your initial report. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of signatures

Hi Sorry for troubles. I explained almost everything on bottom of McGeddon talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McGeddon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cikicdragan (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theyuusuf143

Since you were very helpful in seeing the behavior relation with Hadraa do you mind checking this one out? AcidSnow (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I also added another example about how they often add a space before their "?". This is quite unique. AcidSnow (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating a page for my company.

Hi Vanjagenije Thank you so much for your lovely welcome. I have never created a page on wiki before and I find the instructions quite difficult. I tried to create a page for my company but it was deleted as the content was too self serving. I would love some guidance and feedback as to how I can make the content more suitable for Wikipedia and then how I can submit my content. I would really appreciate your help as I am having trouble with this. If I could send you what I currently have for my page, would you mind giving me some feedback? Many thanks Eimear123 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eimear123: Excuse me, but what welcome? Are you using multiple user accounts? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there yes, my username was EmesC. I'm not sure how it changed 09:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimear123 (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Eimear123: You should know that Wikipedia does not allow using more than one user account. I already told you that here. You say that you already tried to create an article about your company, but as I can see, EmesC never created any article. Do you have even more accounts? I suspect that account Wardah786 is also yours. Anyway, you should choose one account, and stop using others. Otherwise, you may be banned from Wikipedia.
You are asking me to help you create an article about your company. You should understand that Wikipedia has certain policies. One of the most important policies is called the "NOTABILITY". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it may only contain articles about notable subjects. But, Wikipedia has its own definition of NOTABILITY. In Wikipedia, notability is proven by citing several reliable independent sources that significantly cover the subject. Sources may be books, magazines, newspapers, trusted web portals, etc. But, they have to significantly cover the subject, not just to mention it in passing (see: WP:42). If you create an article without citing reliable sources to prove the notability, such article would be deleted for sure. Another, very important Wikipedia policy is the "neutral point of view". since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it has to be neutral, and it is hardly possible to write a neutral article about your own company. Because of that, I recommend you to read this: WP:PLAINSIMPLECOI. If you don't want to risk your article be deleted again, you may create it in the DRAFT namespace first. Feel free to ask me if you need more help. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI - I messed up!

Hi Vanjagenije, I messed up while filing an SPI. I wasn't paying attention and I accidentally pasted the sock's name in the sockmaster field. Can you please move the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amaka Onochie to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kosi Onochie? Sorry for the extra work, and I appreciate your help. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb:  Done, but you could also have done it without me. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the procedure? Just do a page move to the Kosi Onochie target? Or should I have copy/pasted? I get paranoid when monkeying in these areas. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: I just copy-pasted. You can't just move when the target page already exists. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Piketty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Piketty. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autlo

Hello Vanjagenije,
You deleted Autlo.
I wanted to point out, that this is notable article, as it is the first fully automated parking payment solution in the world available today in 40 000 parking spaces across Estonia. Its not automatic parking car (which is known and made buy Audi, BMW and others, it is fully automatic payments, which are made by car (patent pending: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20150611&CC=WO&NR=2015081968A1&KC=A1)
As this is unique in the world scale, then we ask you to review your decision and restore the article.
(sorry if i posted the request in a wrong way, but it is little-bit confusing)
Thank you in advance,
Krisko~etwiki

@Krisko~etwiki: I did not delete anything. Only administrators have right to delete articles, and I am not one of them. I am part of a process called WP:New pages patrol, and I proposed your article for speedy deletion. It was then deleted by administrator Versageek (see the log). I also cannot restore the article; only administrators have that right. The main (but not the only) reason your article was deleted is the WP:Notability of its subject. You wrote the article about a company, but did not provide reliable independent sources to prove the notability (see: WP:42). Except for that, a big issue is your obvious WP:Conflict of interest. It is clear that you are connected to the company and that your interest is to promote it. Wikipedia does not allow advertisement, and strongly discourages its users to write about topics they are connected to (You should read this carefully: WP:PANDSCOI). Feel free to ask me anything you'd like to know. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Sorry

This is in regards to the following sock puppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deadbeat_parent/Archive I have removed any reference to myself, such as links from my own Youtube account or my own personal page (www.okabenamedia.com) from the page in question that has been attacked. I have no idea who is doing this, but I am a public school teacher, and it is likely a disgruntled former student. This same individual (under different names) also attacked me on the Stone Arch Bridge (Minneapolis) page. At this point, I'm not sure what more I can do.

Ray.lowry Ray Lowry 19:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ray.lowry: Well, you don't have any reason to be sorry. You did nothing wrong, as I can tell. But, i reverted your edit at Talk:1973 Gitchie Manitou Murders ([30]). You are not allowed to delete other people's comments from talk pages (except from your own user talk page). You are not even allowed to remove your own comments if that leaves other people's comments out of context (except in some rare cases). Feel free to contact me if you have any trouble with that "Deadbeat parent" vandal. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complete the CU check please

ZORDANLIGHTER admitted on his talk page that he is Darthvaderskywalker2011, still administrator Swarm tagged two accounts as suspected socks of CosmicEmperor. If you listen to Tokyogirl79 and do Clerk endorsed Check User against CosmicEmperor, it won't harm CosmicEmperor in any way. Trust me. Everybody must know the truth. Otherwise ZORDANLIGHTER will create socks posing as CE which will not help even in CE's Standard Offer. In spite of your comment Swarm tagged this User:I am not new here as CosmicEmperor. The only account created by CosmicEmperor after getting blocked is User:Close the UTRS ticket 13876.

Please explain to Swarm. Unfortunately DoRD is inactive, or he would have taken the right action.

Please listen to Tokyogirl79's last suggestion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CosmicEmperor. --43.249.38.98 (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP which filed this report, belongs to the same IP range which tagged CosmicEmperor and OccultZone as deceased Wikipedian two times.1 and 2 Captain Croc (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Croc: So what? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courthouse disambiguators

Before you move more of the courthouse articles, you should be aware that their titles include the dates because there are identically named courthouses in the same cities from earlier dates which do not yet have articles (see, e.g., List of United States federal courthouses in Texas). I can move them back as I make the new articles, but I'd rather be spared the work. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I understand your concern. But, wp:parenthetical disambiguation in the article title is used to disambiguate existing articles. If an article is non-existent, then it doesn't need to be disambiguated. Per WP:PRECISION, the title should be only as precise as to precisely diferentiete the topic of the article form other existing articles. If you create articles about other identically named courthouses in those same cities, feel free to re-add years to the titles for disambiguation reasons. But, please, don't add them if there are no other articles to disambiguate from. But the way, I have no intention to move more articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in helping to create the missing courthouse articles? Much of the necessary information is in the state-by-state tables. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Are you sure they are notable enough to have separate articles? I'm not an expert in the field of US buildings, so I guess the answer is: no. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are covered under Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#United States federal courthouses, which deems "purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for United States district courts" as "highly likely to be notable". Federal courthouses tend to be historically significant as representations of federal power in a region, and as the location of historic trials and proceedings; many are also architecturally significant. bd2412 T 12:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, feel free to create those articles. And feel free to ask me for help if you need some. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are somewhere on my (very long) to-do list. bd2412 T 13:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decentnil

too late to add Earpixelscom to the same report? Or a new one? Thanks, Bazj (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, looks like you've gone offline. I'll add a new one. Cheers, Bazj (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need1521 SPI

You recently closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Need1521. As a user familiar with this sockpuppeteer noted at the end of it, another sock has just appeared. Given that the last SPI has just been marked as closed, I started a new SPI, but it won't let me save it. I get a "failed to save edit - invalid token". I've saved the evidence for now in my sandbox here. How can I proceed with that? Valenciano (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valenciano: Hmm... I don't know. The fact that the previous investigation was recently closed should not have any effect on opening new investigation. How did you try to open new investigation? did you use Twinkle tool? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got that message through the Twinkle module. Maybe I should try it manually? Valenciano (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valenciano: Maybe you should try using Twinkle again. If it fails again, try manually. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did it manually as it wasn't saving. However, the manual version has saved as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Need1521. Weird. Is that in the right place or where does it need moved to? Valenciano (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valenciano: No. Please, move it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521 below the closed case. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. I'll request a procedural speedy delete of the other page. Valenciano (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed another one, since this pest is quite prolific, however how to list it on the overview page as it isn't showing up? Valenciano (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valenciano: Overview page is maintained by a bot which runs every 10 minutes. So, you have to wait (at most) 10 minutes after you fill a case. Is it all right now? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's showing up at the top as "CU completed" based on the SPI from 3 days ago, but this is a new one on the same user with different socks. Valenciano (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valenciano: Every case is listed just once in the main list. So, if it is listed as "CU completed", it is not listed as "open" at the same time. The bot classifies cases according to certain criteria, and "CU completed" status takes precedence over "open" status. In short, it's all OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it'll show up eventually, I guess. Thanks. Valenciano (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valenciano: Yes, I closed the previous investigation, so it will be classified as "open" in the next 10 minutes ("open" takes precedence over "closed"). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Ok, so I know what blocking is but what about banning? I mean it is so confusing to me. Is ban just another word for blocking or is it something different? Please reply sir. Gameroffun (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gameroffun: Did you try to read WP:BLOCKBANDIFF? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Now I understand what banning is! Thank you sir!! Gameroffun (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/thevideogameexpert

Hello, it has been a day or so, but could you please take a look at this SPI case? It has been a while. Gameroffun (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vanjagenije (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711

And, could you do the same for this SPI case. No SPI Clerk has endorsed or declined the checkuser request yet. Gameroffun (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can you please check your e-mail? I left you a message. --Steverci (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British-Brazilian Conversa

The article you deleted relates to an organisation of interest to the British and Brazilian governments (the British Foreign Secretary has formally endorsed it in a letter to me) and to business and education leaders in both countries. It avoids publicity of its deliberations so that these can be frank and open. Perhaps the problem is that it is not otherwise on the internet.

90.195.158.165 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Alan Charlton[reply]

@90.195.158.165 and GBeef: I did not delete anything. Only administrators are able do delete pages, and I am not one of them. I am doing a process called New pages patrol and I proposed your article The British-Brazilian Conversa for deletion. It was then deleted by administrator Peridon. The reason it was deleted was the lack of WP:Notability. According to Wikipedia policies, we only accept articles about subjects that are notable. Wikipedia defines "notable" as "being significantly discussed in reliable independent sources" (see: WP:42). Those sources have to be cited in the article, so to prove the notability. Your article did not cite any sources, nor did it in any way explain why the organisation is notable (see: WP:NORG). The article was speedily deleted according to the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. You are free to create the article again, but be sure to include several reliable, independent sources that significantly discuss the subject (otherwise, I will be deleted again). You may start the article as a WP:draft and then move it to the WP:article namespace when it's ready. It is also clear that you are connected to this organisation, so be sure to read this: WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. And, also, try not to edit while logged-out because that way you reveal you IP address which may be used to locate you. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that that the absence of info is a problem. I only found nine hits on Google. One was the article, two were prwire which is not a reliable independent source WP:RS, one was the Brazilian embassy in London (not independent, and just a general link to the embassy site anyway), one to someone on LinkedIn (not RS), and the others look like mentions in things about other subjects. If you can supply better, please let us know. A letter to you is not a verifiable source, and also not independent. It may be right or may be wrong, but we insist on reasonably widespread coverage in reliable independent sources to prove that something is notable enough for inclusion. It may be approved by governments, but if no-one has heard of it, we tend to leave it out. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New rangeblock

Hello Vanjagenije. Noticing that you recently closed WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Troll1212/Archive, I took another look at the list of IPs reported there. Since there have been new contributions from some of them in July, I issued a new /25 rangeblock per this, for one month. If the rangecontribs tool ever returns to duty, it might be worth looking into a /19 to cover all of the Hosted Solutions range. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thank you! I wanted to check whether they continued editing after the block expired, but the rangecontribs was not working. So, I just closed the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sturanos and the Tirgil34 SPI

Hi, i was in the process of adding Sturanos to the Tirgil34 SPI before a CU was endorsed. I've now added Sturanos to the this ongoing case instead of filing a new one. Could you take a look before a CU is performed? Krakkos (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll take a look. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije/Archive_9&oldid=1186930193"