This is an archive of past discussions with User:HelloAnnyong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please take a look at this. I didn't know how to "un-archive" it, so I'm not sure it's been restored to the queue of active cases, but it needs to be addressed. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That's probably what it is/was. I had just never come across something similar and so thought it should probably be reported somewhere (in case more nonsense posting pops up in the future from these two accounts). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks about SPI
Thanks for taking a look at the SPI I initiated. I have to disagree with your conclusion on this one because the edits made to Joe Davola (TV producer) were not constructive and could be looked at as vandalism. There was no verification for the information put in the article, and the IP address removed notices that I put "Wantagh Auxiliary Police - Nassau County, NY" which Billman3 created (that article was just speedily deleted). WantaghNY (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
True. I'm sure we have further problems going on here with COI (Billman3 adding info about Bill Mancusi?) but the edits were too far apart to really take actions on them. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)01:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
FACTS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF AZERBAIJAN THAT KEEP GETTING REMOVED:
4. They keep removing the original Azeri language from a document misleadingly called the "History of Azerbaijan" (Native Azari-Persian: آذربایجان).
5. They keep removing citations to sourced materials, for example: " 'In Volume 3, of The Colliers Encyclopedia, Professor Tadeusz Swietochowski, an Honorary Doctor of Baku State University and Member of Central Eurasian Studies Society, with an academic specialization in the history of Azerbaijan states: 'From the time of ancient Media and the Persian Empire (9th to 4th centuries B.C.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran (Persia).' ”
6. On every map, prior to the 20th Century, going back thousands of years, you will notice that Azerbaijan is a part of Persia (Iran); You will notice today that there are upwards of 25 million Azeris living in Iran and that Iran's largest Province is called Azerbaijan; The newly created 'Republic of Azerbaijan' (a new country) was in recent historical times carved out of this Iranian Province by a Soviet military invasion, but that does not change thousands of years of History). They are removing a sourced clarification of these facts, for example: "Not to be confused with the "Province of Azerbaijan" in Iran, the "Republic of Azerbaijan" (to the North) was created after the invasion of Russia into Iranian Azerbaijan, and partition of Persia (Iran)."
7. They are removing a Google map reference to Pars-Abad (city of Persians) in Azerbaijan, i.e. : "An ancient Zoroastrian village by the name of Pars-Abad (پارس آباد), which literally translates to “City of Persians,” still exists on the northern border of the province of Azerbaijan *Wikimapia
8. They are removing a citation to a scholarly text hundreds of years old attesting to Azeri History, confirmed by the University of Leiden (in Holland), that attests to Azerbaijan being a part of Persia (Iran), for example:
Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azerbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azeri, as well as other Persian languages.[1]
THEY ARE RE-WRITING HISTORY WITH UN-SOURCED MATERIALS - AND VANDALIZING CITATIONS.
The admin generated report indicated that: "This IP address, Tuscumbia, is registered to Grandmaster. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact Grandmaster to report abuse, which can be done here." User:Tuscumbia a/k/a User:Grandmaster is repeatedly vandalizing the page 'History of Azerbaijan' and removing sourced material and replacing it with his own story-line that wholly lack citations. User:Tuscumbia's Talk page is a lengthy list of complaints by many users and administrators; he has gone so far as to attempt to block a University from adding information from published scholarly texts. Appropriate warning were given. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tuscumbia See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grandmaster
Thank you for your kind attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbronn (talk • contribs) 04:19, January 24, 2011
Really? 'Cause it seems like youadded those notes to their pages. If you're going to lie to me or cause a disruption, at least make it look believable. I'm not interested in this battle you're engaged in, and I'm not going to take any actions against editors like that. Take your arguments elsewhere; I'll not hear them. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)04:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. What a funny report by a sockpuppeteer :) Did he really thing faking a notice and presenting it as an admin warning me is going to work? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
HiHelloAnnyong, I am siding with Rjbronn on this one -- looks like he added sourced material, discussed it politely on the pages of individuals that were edit warring, and you blocked him/her without comment. Total loss of respect.
HelloAnnyong, I reviewed the history of some of your remarks -- I believe you are out of line.
HelloAnnyong, without any disrespect intended, I noticed that User:Rjbronn was both factually correct and acting in accordance with administrator advice. I further noticed that you did not address any of his points on the merits, certainly not specifically, and simply stated that 'I am not going to get involved' -- it appears on his/her Talk page that you blocked.
It looks like several people have been locked out of editing the History of Azerbaijan, and in fact, locked out control over their own original contributions (comments/talk). In an effort to be polite, I won't state what I believe what that practice constitutes, but I will be happy to email those individuals privately so that they can understand what their recourse is.
Questions for you, HelloAnnyong:
1. What specifically was wrong with Rjbronn's additions of sourced material?
2. Did you conduct a sock puppet investigation of Tuscumbia and Grandmaster (They're the same!)?
3. I ran an IP check on Rjbronn, and he is right; it's a University IP (i.e., there a number of people editing from that place).
Your first edit on Wikipedia is to come here and ask me these questions - ones that are rather specific to those posed by Rjbronn. Actually, all of your edits are, in one way or another, connected to this case. Surely you can see the suspicion there, no? — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)01:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Annyong, or perhaps I should say hello HelloAnnyong. On my most recent SPI request you allowed the accounts to remain unblocked because they had not edited recently. I ask that you please reconsider your decision. Lanternix has a history of creating accounts and using them later after a significant period of time has elapsed (e.g. see the contribution histories of User:Coptic101, User:Afanous, and User:Jimmydunn2010). To prevent him from doing the same with these accounts, I suggest you block them as suspected sockpuppets based on behavioral evidence alone. That the checkuser found both accounts to be editing from proxies only gives further credence to my suspicion, as Lanternix's home IP was blocked following the previous checkuser. In order for him to edit, therefore, it is necessary that he obtain a new IP or edit by proxy. Another administrator also suggested blocking both of the accounts. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Planuu (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The CU didn't confirm the connection between those counts and Lanternix, though - it just showed that they were editing through proxies. So yes, that is rather suspicious, but it's not damning. Amatulic may have suggested blocking the accounts, but he did it on the archive page (and was subsequently reverted for doing so) so I never saw it. He's welcome to do the block if he's uninvolved, but per the findings I couldn't quite justify it. Also remember that blocks are cheap. If I don't block those two accounts and they never edit again, then there's no quantifiable loss, right? And if they do edit, we'll know and can deal with it rather easily. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)12:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think the fact that they edited from proxies and had significant behavioral similarities is enough to block them as suspected sockpuppets. However, if you think otherwise, I understand. I will leave a little note on their talk pages, so that if they do start editing again, other editors are aware of this incident from users' talk page history. Is that alright? Planuu (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
AppleTV
Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Mattnad's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
hi there, i see you have responded to my R4PP, is there anyway i can bypass the block to revert the article to the last stable version? Eli+14:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The question on my mind is how you came to edit that article. That your first edit was to remove the same text that has been removed by a bunch of other editors is, quite honestly, suspicious. Were you asked to edit the article and remove that? Did you find a link from another site that brought you here? Acting on another person's behalf is considered to be meatpuppetry, and is generally frowned upon.
I'm not really familiar with the article, but it seems like there's been a battle going on about that text - and I believe you inadvertently got caught up in it. If you really have no connection to anyone else there, then I'm sorry that your first experience with Wikipedia has turned out to be like this. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)16:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I may technically be considered a meat puppet? I was told of the article by a friend on a fan website. I am a fan of Mary's as well, so I wanted to check it out and was intending to defend Mary as not being the purpetrator of the title. However, when I looked at the citation and could not find any other evidence off google, and then read the 'criteria' of the page I decided to create an account and make the edit (deletion) and add my comment as to why. It was undone the next day so I have continued to debate rather than edit. I hope this does not mean I am a sock puppet? But if I am? I don't think the 'administrators' are listening to my logic, so maybe it doesn't matter. I think it's a bit funny that because I didn't 'happen' on to the article my opinion is invalid? I am not being directed as to what to say or do, and I am busy defending Mary against some Gladys fans that keep saying its Mary's idea! Happy to discuss further. Cheers...Cole Cole Hayes (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Page protection requested
Here we are again. The same single-purpose user, now apparently traveling and logging on from different coffeeshop websites (one IP address in Charlottesville, one in Illinois) is trying to push an agenda again on the Virginia Quarterly Review page. Since a block won't work against changing IP addresses, I'd suggest a week's worth of page protection. There are apparently new developments but there are as yet no articles to footnote. I'll can add cites once there is an objective source.ElijahBosley(talk ☞)13:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is possible to have been wrong about this user. User:Stubes99 has used during history only Hungarian IPs, while OliverTwist88 says that his IP is from San Diego, CA. He affirms "The only articles I created where the Golden Team and the Black Army of Hungary, an have created no other. I'm afraid this is all a terrible misunderstanding."
Instead of trying to explain his innocence, OliverTwist88 preferred to evade his block using the IP 24.25.218.135 (IP location: San Diego, California)
Nevertheless, even if he is not the sock of Stubes99, OliverTwist88 could be a sock of someone else. He pretends to be "the original creator" of Black Army of Hungary article, but the started contributing to the resective article from this account on 3 January 2011.
You are apparently not working for Wikipedia. You are working here for your friend Rjecina. You acted promptly to prevent CU here despite the fact that both Rjecina and this Kennechten edited in the span of few days. Then you apparently advise your friend to open another case against MagnumCrimen which you handle the way Rjecina suggested. Now many articles will be heavily damaged, full of nationalistic propaganda and nonsense. This childish way of 'discovering' Velebit's socks shows me that Velebits were 'discovered' in New York, Colorado, Virginia and Maryland, judging by the IP addresses reported as socks.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ask for help
Dear admin. I proposed a page move here and there are two problems which I didn't find in the guideline how I can resolve them. The request was to move Azerbaijan (Iran) --> Azerbaijan and simultaneously Azerbaijan --> Azerbaijan (country) First, as it's mutltiple move it should have been listed in Azerbaijan automatically but it hasn't. Second the consensus was NO but yesterday a user (User Alborz Fallah) made a comment and gave a new and good idea (Azerbaijan be for disambiguation page). I'll be appreciably grateful if you tell me how can we change the request to the new one.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply. Exactly yes, the consensus is No and the comment of that user is a better suggestion, so I want to know how should we start a new request that appears in both pages.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Your legend for "wikipedia" in many languages on t-shirt
Wikipedia-tshirt-languages
I put this image up, being a lover of t-shirts. As a language lover I also dug a number of the languages out myself, but ran out of energy and wondered if anyone else had done so, so I inquired about the languages on it on the wikix-l list for the tenth anniversary.
Can you upload that to Commons (or license it so that we can make it available there)? And even better, is it available as an svg file so we can add links, etc? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That's ok. Had a very late night and only just logged on. First thing I saw was messages. Took me a while to figure out what had happened. No harm done. Anyway, thanks for checking out that IP. Cheers, LordVetinari (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain...
I hate sockpuppets. I saw a note on Talk:Julian Assange that User:Templar98 had been blocked because he or she had been
exposed as a sockpuppet. So I went to User:Templar98 to see if any explanation had been offered as to what proof had been found the wiki-id had been a sockpuppet.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PalestineRemembered
PalestineRemembered, the wiki-id Templar98 is accused of being a sockpuppet of, was last active 2 years ago. I was under the impression that the logs that enable detecting sockpuppetry only went back months -- not years.
I don't know User:Templar98. I don't remember ever noticing their comments or edits before today. But I would like to think that the sockpuppet investigation process was reliable. And, while it should protect the off-wiki privacy of everyone, including the sockpuppets, I would like the process to be as open and transparent as possible, consistent with protecting the off-wiki privacy of the sockpuppets. Is there some place where you left a summary as to what kind of proof you found that Templar98 was a sockpuppet? If not could you leave a summary somewhere?
I would also appreciate a a fuller explanation because there are some individuals who harrass me, who I have suspected are sockpuppets, but I thought the logs wouldn't go back far enough to confirm their perfidy.
If the logs go back far enough I should consider requesting an investigation into the logs that confirm their perficy.
Anyong, Annyong. Sorry, didn't mean to be obtuse. This edit included a contact email "...<at>mercuryconsultingworldwide.com", so I went to the website. I meant the globe made out of jigsaw puzzle pieces on top left of their home page. Somewhat similar to the one in the top left of the page you're looking at now, ね? Then again, so does this :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You closed an SPI about Billman3. One of the pages that were involved in the issue was Joe Davola (TV producer). The mentioned IP reverted the page back to the way it was before I removed the information about "Bill Mancusi." I am starting to think an automated program might be being used. I think I am going to reopen the SPI. Please take a look at this. WantaghNY (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't bother opening the case; it's not like there's any new evidence. It's the same IP adding the same stuff - so it's the same person. I've reverted the text and warned the editor. It's not long term enough to warrant any blocking so far, but if it gets out of hand let me know. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)17:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The IP reverted your edit. In the edit summary it gave the edit a number which leads me to believe that an automated program might be in the mix here. WantaghNY (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not what it means. If you use the built-in Wiki undo function, it appends the number of the unique revision to the edit summary. You can see it all over the place. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Duckish?
Hey HelloAnyong - thought I'd bring this AN/I thread to your attention. This user showed up on some of the articles our friend ONY had been editing at a period when ONY was blocked, making me think, hmmm. I'd unwatched the pages and completely forgotten about it until reading the AN/I thread a few moments ago. The comments on the user's page show a very familiar tone. Anyway, you're pretty good at distinguishing ducks, so I'm leaving it to you to have a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. It's possible, but I think this person's tone is a little different. There's nothing obvious enough yet to warrant a duck block or anything like that, but I think we'll know when ONY comes back.. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)20:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The same applies to Nanorlb, who has also requested an unblock. I have looked at the editing history of all the 7 accounts involved, and can see nothing suspicious or objectionable. The explanation given by Jeff Bedford, namely that they work in the same building, seems plausible. Naturally you will take into account the outcome of your consultation with a checkuser, but on the face of it this does not look like sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've notified the checkuser who confirmed the accounts about these two issues, and he in turn asked for another look from other CUs. CU isn't pixie dust, so this may have been a case of false positives. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)15:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been declined, not closed - so yes, we'll take a look at it for behavior. I'm a little busy right now though, but I (or another clerk) will get it to when we can. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)17:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of it. If you take a look three sections up on here you'll see that it's currently pending a response from the checkusers list. There were some anomalies with this case, so it required another set of eyes. I've contacted the CU who ran the check and he told me that he's still waiting for a reply. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Asserting, moreover, that he is doing this at the suggestion of [1] WMC. [2] appears to indicate he is making edits at WMC's behest, making specific edits which might reasonably be construed as violating WMCs restrictions per ArbCom [3] as one example including "Gardner claims that cranks have two common characteristics. The first "and most important" is that they work in almost total isolation from the scientific community. Gardner defines the community as efficient networks of communication within a scientific field, together with a co-operative process of testing new theories. This process allows for apparently bizarre theories to be published - such as Einstein's theory of relativity, which initially met with considerable opposition, but which was never dismissed as the work of a crackpot, and which soon met with almost universal acceptance ([2] But the crank 'stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and evaluated. He does not send his findings to the recognized journals or, if he does, they are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. Collect (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this may be a bit hasty. If you look at the full conversation WMC points out that "As you suggested" refers to an IP, not WMC. Why it's on his talkpage is unclear to me, but whatever. WMC's general tone is one of indifference and not really collusion or something. No, I think in this case it's better to let it lie for now. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually the "welcome" sent by WMC is response to the "Edits" by the IP on the Fads and Fallacies page - WMC pretty much knew the nature of the IP (WMC is not a major "welcome person") Collect (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand they were deleted because they had been created by a blocked user (fair enough, too) but I wonder if they might actually have been useful / worthwhile. There's quite a bit of effort being put into Italian nobility of the 17th century by a range of hard-working editors and I'd hate for a couple of valuable pages to be deleted because they got caught up in a sock investigation.
I know they had no substantive contributions from other users but I wonder if that's just because we hadn't noticed them yet...
If you're aware of that editor's style of writing, these two articles are a lot like that - flowery, overflowing text and so on. One had one source, and the other had none altogether. I'd be willing to give you a copy of them in subpages if you'd like. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
László Sütö was also created by a Latham sock - not sure if this may be just another made up notability case but given his background and the fact it's a sole edit by one of his socks, I would say its probably CSD Zanoni (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Turns out he is notable and has made his first team debut for MTK [4] - can you let me have the text back for this one so I can clean it up and add it back? Zanoni (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you but this concerns me feeling afraid of User:Passionless.
He is following me everywhere and has on his talk page A LIST of accounts connected with me.
He is adding the list to the talk pages of others (User talk:Xeno)[5] so that editors who see Xeno's talk page see the list with selectively chosen edit summaries taken out of context.
He accused me of leaving a disruptive message on his talk page.[6] All I did was remove an edit I'D made which you'd warned me was uncivil.[7] I didn't remove the list, I said I hadn't been abusing multiple accounts and I'd try to be more civil, the edit summary said Shalom (peace). *I tried to indicate on my talk page that I was looking for help. The user who came to my page went to Passionless's talk page and started a thread with my name suggesting going to AN/I. Passionless said he was "wanting to wait a bit until there is more evidence of wrongdoings continuing even after warnings were made."
First off, it's his talkpage and he can do with it as he pleases (at least, as long as there's no outing going on or anything like that). And he's allowed to post on other people's talk pages with supposed findings; that's not illegal or anything. Inka didn't do anything wrong here; you misused the category is all. I don't know if Inka was contacted off-Wiki or somewhere else, but he's allowed to give his thoughts. Anyway, most of this happened before the SPI case was closed, and it seems to have tapered off since then. If it does come to ANI you can claim it's hounding if you can support it. My advice to you for now, though, is to lay low and stop pissing off people. You've already made enough waves, and now it's time to let things calm down. Above all, stay away from Passionless and don't make things worse. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)03:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked AndroidCat for a week for evading his topic ban and socking, and I blocked the IP for three days as well.
As I understand it, you took ResidentAnthropologist's word that I was blocked from editing religious scholar pages, in spite of herm's unsuccessful previous attempt with ARBSCI, and without performing any CheckUser, concluded that I was socking and edit-warring. As the IP in question points to an Australian origin, and as I am very definitely located in Ontario Canada, on the other side of the planet (see my numerous picture contributions in Greater Toronto Area articles), and as there was a deliberate action not to inform me that such a sockpuppet accusation was happening ("I have chosen not to Notify the Individual of these allegations at this time") I was not able to respond in any way in the proper field "Comments by other users / Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims." for that action.
So, if this is what happened, I'd appreciate your advice in requesting that an actual CheckUser be done on the edits by IP 118.208.147.244. I certainly didn't make those edits, neither by proxy nor by meat-puppet, and I have no privacy problems, so let's see who really did this. AndroidCat (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A checkuser was not run, as it's against the privacy policy to state that "User X edited from IP 1.2.3.4." And so we're not going to run a CU to see who really is behind that IP. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so if I'm accused convicted of sock-puppeteering, I can't even waive my own privacy (I have my permission) and ask that a CheckUser be done to see if 118.208.147.244 is in any way connected to my editing?
I remind you:
I've blocked you for a week for violating your topic ban on James R. Lewis (scholar), as well as for editing while logged out to continue to edit war. — HelloAnnyong
Do you, in fact, have any evidence that I edited while logged out and continued to edit war, or are you assuming Bad Faith? (If ResidentAnthropologist really was sure that it was a topic ban violation, hesh would have taken it to ARBSCI rather than this backdoor route.) AndroidCat (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
But the other accounts have all been blocked, so they have actually edited in much more recently than eight months. -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
At the very least, I'm not going to tag all those socks as being confirmed to the master as it hasn't been confirmed. I'd consider tagging them as suspected socks, but I'm not happy with that. Optiplex 210L (talk·contribs) is the next oldest account after the master. Look, the fact is that Sherurcij had 36,000+ edits on here, with another 24k on Wikisource and 3k on Commons. I have a hard time blocking an account like that - however likely it may be - on just a whim. No, I'm sorry, but I won't do it. If it becomes active again I'll endorse the case all you want, but not right now. If you want we can rename the case to show Optiplex as the master for now, and we can always change it later. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)04:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I would be fine with that - except that might lead to the case page being moved in the future - and it should stay where it is. So probably do nothing at this point in time. Might be an interesting idea to delve more into these various Confirmed accounts, and compile correlations between them for additional behavioral evidence tied to the suspected sockmaster main account. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
hm
Was there a specific reason for the two letters "hm" on this SPI? I'm wondering if that was due to me posting in the wrong section, or because no more accounts were found, or .. what. tedder (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't need a CU to make obvious blocks like that; if you report them to me I'll take care of it. Did Avi run a CU on it to uncover/confirm those? If he didn't, you can always open a case for it and someone else will run it. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)12:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I just discovered those two accounts hours after the act, and both of you were out by the time I did. I never told you and Avi about those two accounts because I did get some help, and since Avi's out as of this moment, it seems he may not be aware about it. BTW, how would I make a new report about an old puppetmaster using these two socks as new reference? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs13:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It'll be automatically listed; the bot runs every 15 minutes. And if you want a checkuser on it, next time change the checkuser parameter to yes. I've done it for you this time. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)15:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, the vandal I'm talking about is the now notorious IP-hopping Indonesian misinformation vandal, who had just did his MO (inserting misinformation on Pokemon, Little League and Televisa-related articles) last Saturday. I had just reported two of the articles he vandalized to WP:RFPP because they had just come out of semi-protection when the vandal hit. I never told you anything about this vandal, so I thought he might not be of interest to you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs04:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Globedweller looks like another sock....
The template still doesnt seem to work for additional cases on the same username and I didnt want to leave a mess for you to clean up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 20:15, February 16, 2011
Yes, the template does work; the case has been closed, so you need to go to WP:SPI and put in Kaufman1111 as the username. Anyway, I'm not really seeing it, so you go open the case for the sock and explain your rationale. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)20:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, so, Banu hoshech was blocked as a suspected SP of Shrike's and you left the note "I've blocked and tagged the sock on behavioral evidence. If Shrike broke any restrictions on their editing, take it to AE.". I was just confused as to who the word "their" refers. Does is mean 'if Shrike and Banu's edits together broke restrictions I can take Shrike to AE', or is it just 'if Shrike broke restrictions regardless of Banu's actions he can be taken to AE'? Thanks, Passionless-Talk23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Its not my sockpuppet because many Israelis may share the same view about similar issues they may agree with other editors with same background. The user in question merely reverted disruptive edit by Passionless its not enough evidence to claim I have any socks or whatever.--Shrike (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I see Donald Duck is the one who proposed the case, mysteriously while he is involved in a dispute with most of the parties here. Quite honestly, I have barely even met Donald Duck (who, ironically, apparently is also Zhou Yu, Zhang He and Eugene Krabs according to his user page, although Zhou Yu was banned on 16 December 2010... what is this about exactly?), discussed issues with him on Deportations of Circassians with about 3 exchanges, and suddenly he is filing a case against me? Perhaps he hopes that I am a sockpuppet... but I'm not. I honestly have never broken any of the rules, never used anohter account, never voted twice, etc... I guess I have nothing to worry about, because you guys will find, with your edit lists and IP finding and all that stuff that I haven't done anything wrong. But at the very least (I'm not sure about the rules), but I wonder if Donald Duck seeks to use the investigation and all the scanning or whatever you guys do to figure out information about me... could you mods make sure to keep it among yourselves (I don't know if you do that already, but yeah...)?--Yalens (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have posted some evidence at the Yalens SPI: [9]. I think there is good reason to believe Yalens is actually a sock of User:HanzoHattori. If you're not convinced, I can try to make it more clear by posting more diffs, but I think the current evidence should be enough to warrant a CU check. Btw, can you add User:Asperchu to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori? He was recently blocked as the latest sock of HanzoHattori: [10]. This will make future SPI investigations easier. Thanks a lot for your time. Nanobear (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
As someone who previously paid attention to editing by Yalens [11][12], I must tell: he has nothing to do with HanzoHattori who was more advanced with regard to his writing skills if nothing else.Biophys (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you think that new editor on there is another sock? I have a bit of an issue protecting the page for awhile given that the last find was a day ago (or so) but... — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's very likely, but given Arbcom's attitude regarding Scibaby I can understand the reluctance to semi-protect. Anyway it looks like the other editors are on to him[13] so maybe he won't waste as much of our time this go round. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Just because there are no accounts associated with that IP directly doesn't mean it isn't a sock. It's an IP for a mobile network, so it's likely whoever it is is using their phone to get around a block on their regular connection. As I explained on the SPI page, their first edit was a relatively well-informed comment on BLPN. How many brand new editors get involved like that? — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it is a new editor, but there is no reason to assume that it is either someone with an account or someone whose account is blocked. Their comments were critical, but are they in and of themselves worthy of a block? If not, you have no reason to block the IP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
If they're evading their block, then yes, that is a reason to block. I promise you that it had nothing to do with protecting RA, and I certainly didn't approve this reversion. I found their edit on your talk page to be problematic as well; it seemed to be some form of mockery or some such. Anyway, it seemed likely that they were evading their block, so I blocked accordingly. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)22:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This is bordering on tautological. There is no account associated with the IP. Therefore, there is no block associated with the IP for them to be evading. They can't have been "evading their block" if they don't have one. I'm sure whoever was behind this could care less about the block, but I am troubled by this needless blocking of an IP simply because some thin-skinned editor overreacts. Your assumption that they could be an editor evading an existing block could equally be used to block any IP or new editor since you do not seem to require any kind of connection other than your determination of likelihood. Surely we want a little bit more assurance than that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No, not "whatever". I was not evading a block. Now, either you intentionally lied about me evading a block, or you didn't bother to do even the smallest amount of work required to prove such a claim. I realise that there are many who will say such things, but it doesn't resolve you of the duty to do your job properly. It is certainly true that I am not a new editor - I have a long history of IP edits. Most of the time, I just correct spelling mistakes or tidy up pytos. You can probably find a fair bit of my work in areas of sports that do not achieve significant popularity if you try hard enough. However, I will speak my mind where I see someone behaving badly. I am a real person and this is not some whack-a-mole game. You want to object to my sarcasm, that's fine, but don't dress it with trumped up charges because your buddy feels bad. You owe me an apology, but I'll accept a retraction of your dismissive, uncaring statement above and a replacement with something less snarky. You can even remove this comment if you absolutely can't bear to be reminded of the mistake. If only my block log could be wiped so easily, but alas, it'll remain there for the next person who'd rather take a short cut.120.19.252.23 (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You've got yourself a new IP, so it's not on your current block log. How was I supposed to have any idea about your history? I was going based on the knowledge available to me at the time. But you're right about the snark, so I've struck that. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)14:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to prolong this, but I think your comment to the IP makes my point exactly -- "How was I supposed to have any idea about your history?" -- yet you decided that they had been blocked under another IP or account and were evading that imagined block. I appreciate the work you do with sockpuppets and such, but maybe you could consider easing up on the block button where there is no evidence? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Block of Francis E Williams
Hi. I'm sorry to advise that I find myself in disagreement with one of your blocks—that of User:Francis E Williams. I've explained my thoughts on his talkpage.
Of course, it's possible I've missed something in the situation, in which case I will stand corrected; I've commented based just on the information I was able to pick up on-wiki. In any case, your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Both are blocked right now. Look, the unblock is done and I'm not going to reinstate a block for the (now past) situation. If there are any further developments let me know. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Truesayer SPI reopened
Hi as per your comments I've reopened the Truesayer case due to him starting editing again (didn't take long did it?). For good measure he's not just making disruptive edits but now also attacking me personally. Thought you'd like to know as you already have knowledge of the case.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you are listed in Category:Third opinion Wikipedians. Can you or another administrator please take a look at this dispute. Thanks.-5- (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Mail
Hello, HelloAnnyong. 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.
You should be aware that CANVASSing has occurred on the Yorkshirian SPI case again - TFD seems to think every single IP he has ever run across is the famed "Yorkshirian". Even where the continents do not agree. Collect (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Also note that instantly I am then accused of being a sock master from Englsnd! I trust this shows the level of "evidence" being used in SPIs. TFD got the last one blocked, not on evidence, but mainly on his sayso that the person was WP:DUCK. I fear that this is another case where bluster is being used instead of any actual actual evidence. I also ask that Ohiostandard's "evidence" against me be trreated for what it is -- "IDONOTLIKETHEEDITOR therefore he must be a sock". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so where am I supposed to bring Ducks in the future? I don't see why I should have to deal with their disruptive editing until they do it enough times to finally be blocked, they should just be blocked for being ducks. Passionless-Talk21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
First, they were shown to be unrelated. Unless you have actual evidence of socking that can prove beyond it just being potential meatpuppeting, then it's not really worth it to bring it up again. But you can relist at the main SPI case in the future, if necessary. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I know they were unrelated I said so in the first sentence of the SPI, and that Rym is using a mobile device to edit. I was just hoping that people would agree that they are ducks, and be banned under behavioural evidence just like User:Why Me Why U was just last week. Or was Why Me Why U a borderline duck, and usually it needs to be even more obvious before they are blocked under WP:DUCK? Passionless-Talk22:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi HelloAnnyong. First, I would like to state that your work at SPI is greatly appreciated. Second, I would like to discuss some of your closures regarding "meatpuppet accounts". In almost every case I have seen, when there is meatpuppetry involved you have closed the case with "no action taken." While this may be an appropriate closure in some situations, it should also be noted that meatpuppet accounts can be blocked and sometimes should be (for more information, please see WP:MEAT). Generally, if the account appears to be an single-purpose account and their contributions lead me to believe they are a meatpuppet I treat them the same as a sock and indef block (the actions in regards to the "master" are generally less severe than if they were a sockpuppeteer). Also, if I can prove that an account is acting as a proxy or a meatpuppet for another account (exact copy/paste additions, off-site evidence) I take administrative action as well. Meatpuppet accounts can cause just as much damage to the project as socks. Let me know if you have any questions, Tiptoetytalk03:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine. I guess part of it is not feeling bold enough, partially out of a fear of reprisals. Honestly if you think there are any cases that should have been resolved in another way, then definitely let me know. I'm not the only clerk there, and I'm certainly not perfect. But your advice is duly noted, and I'll step it up on those cases. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)03:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I completely understand, and have too been hesitant in taking action against meatpuppets. Additionally, please do not take my comments as anything other than constructive criticism. Like I said, I really do appreciate your work as a clerk; and while you are not the only one it sure feels that way sometimes. Oh, and should you ever need some advice on a specific case my inbox/talk page is always open. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk04:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if I could clarify/seek your advice regarding the SPI filed against me (Kaniket) in relation to my creating the Maitreesh_Ghatak page. While closing the SPI, you said that you suspected Wikipedia:Meat_puppetry but did not launch an investigation. I have an explanation on Talk:Maitreesh_Ghatak about how I came to create the page in June 2009. There was a clear COI but it was my first time and I was ignorant of the Wikipedia rules. As soon as I realised my mistake, I stopped contributing. That was 18 months ago. It was all done in good faith, I had no intention of doing anything surreptitious and indeed my username Kaniket is reconstituted from my real name Kumar Aniket. Since my contribution, the Maitreesh_Ghatak page has grown organically with numerous contributions from a variety of users and my contribution has (rightly) been edited away entirely. Of course, I would be happy to clarify any issues raised if there is a Wikipedia:Meat_puppetry investigation.
I would be grateful if you could clarify whether the autobiography tag on the Maitreesh Ghatak page is required since there are no ongoing investigations. My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) from the various talk pages on Wikipedia is that the current content of the page matters more than history. Indeed, the content of the page is mostly the contribution of numerous recent editors. If there is any controversial content added by someone with or without COI, then of course it should be pointed out and removed. If there is nothing controversial, then if I am not wrong, it is a matter of the Wikipedia:Notability test. Your advise would be much appreciated. kaniket (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket
I'm not at all familiar with that page or what happened there. From what I can see, though, it seems that the tag was added not solely due to your edits, but because Maitreesh (talk·contribs) edited the article awhile back. The article does seem to be stable, so perhaps the tag is not wholly required. If I were you, I'd post on the talk page to see if the tag can/should be removed. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to report that one incident of one user (myself) switching user names has resulted in multiple editors (who were making good-faith efforts to improve a very biased page) being blocked from editing the Traditional Chinese Medicine page.
I did not know about the term "sock puppet" when I created a new account in an effort to edit without using my actual identity (as this seems to be the norm on WP). The editor who is defending defamatory POV material on the page ("PPdd") has mistakenly assumed that other editors (who I am not associated with) are also sock puppets associated with me. I believe the general protection hold on editing that page should be lifted so other concerned editors can improve the article. It is greatly in need of improvement as in its current form it presents an exotic and frankly ridiculous view of the medicine.
Brendan, you can still use the talk page to make suggestions. Gaming the system by going right up to 3RR and then creating new usernames is forbidden. That is proof that bad will and deception is involved. One has to know the rules here to do that. Ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse by these sockpuppets or meatpuppets. They should all be banned and only one account be used.
BTW, I have just deleted that image from the TCM and Acupuncture articles. It's simply not necessary to have ANY image there, much less such a poor one. It's also not worth going to dispute resolution, which is a very time consuming and disruptive process, and it's definitely not worth edit warring over. That's never right. Let's end this picture fiasco here and now. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Brendan, what is the web address for the discussion forum you referred to on Wikipedia's alt med articles?PPdd (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you BullRangifer. Still, the bigger issue here is that PPdd is accusing me of something much worse than I have done. Out of ignorance I did attempt to switch to a different user name for anonymity but other editors that I do not know have been tarred with the same brush. Also, PPdd has criticized some well-sourced and responsible edits I did on a different page, and implied some sinister intent in a very minor technical correction to an already established page on an accredited degree. This feels like harassment to me. PPdd, is it your intention to block me from doing any edits on wikipedia because you don't like how I tried to remove a bad picture from the TCM page?Brendan.mattson (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Written messages sound more harsh than they may be intended to be, since there is no gesture or intonation. You should request a name change at the link I put on your talk page. (1)Why did you violate the 3RR warning? (2) What is the webadress of the discussion forum? Please discuss 3RR here[18] and SP here[19], and not on this talk page. Thanks. :) PPdd (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Possible evasion of sockpuppet block
You recently blocked Angtitimo and Sheldon Lowe, both sockpuppets of the same user. These two sock puppets were used in a coordinated "attack" on the Phi Kappa Phi page that lead to an edit war last year in March. Now a new user with a name strikingly similar to the first, Antitimo, appears on the same page, and engages in the same edit war as his/her only edit. The Mediation agreement s/he references in the summary of his/her edit had nothing to do with the edits I recently made. This person has not only been disruptive to that page in the past, s/he is now evading a sockpuppet block to continue disruption. I have undone his/her edits, but suspect s/he'll persist. I request that the page become protected. Thank you!--Lhakthong (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I started an SPI for it here. I still request the page be protected because I am sure that, given past Bx, once this new account is blocked another one will show up to do the same thing.--Lhakthong (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michoball, merged with Gravitom. I am tempted to non-admin decline the unblock request, but will leave for you if another admin doesn't get to it @ Karuba333. Also requesting admin move.
Hi, hope all is well with you in your new capacity. Just wanted to let you know that there's some activity at Akins that you might want to keep your eye on. Looks quite familiar! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're doing well. You previously helped investigate a sock or meat puppet of User:Factual Items, User:Ilitt1 on the page Franklin Square, New York. User:Ilitt1 and User:24.188.223.25 have continued to post the same previously reverted items in the article, reverted other cited changes, do not follow WP:EL rules against repeated advice, and have not used the talk page even though several users have suggested this. Would it be possible to block these new sock/meat accounts? It is sort of a never-ending thing with socks of User:Factual Items, they post a new item each day until the article is taken over. Thanks! Factothy (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
All of the ones in group two were blocked, but were later exonerated and unblocked by Elen of the Roads. I'm not sure why she chose not to unblock MBMadmirer; it may have just been a simple overlooking. I only blocked that account along with the others based on the CU evidence. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)02:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
To be completely honest, I thought that whole case was a little funny. I don't think it was a conflict of interest, though - if I remember correctly, they weren't affiliated with the Koch family. But I'd defer judgment to people who are more informed on the intricacies of the case, i.e. those on BASC and functionaries and such. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)03:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:HelloAnnyong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
