This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vanjagenije. 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.
You are violating policy by editing my comments against my wishes for the second time.
As I said in the comment you reverted, you are violating policy by editing my comments. I wrote there, twice, "You SHOULD NOT not edit others posts, Vanjagenije". I added,
"Editing other users comments like this is inappropriate and are violations of CORE POLICY! SPIs are not intended only for Clerks and checkusers' eyes.
UPDATE: CORE POLICY (Which "apply to Wikipedia discussion pages" states, "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (except in a list of exceptional cases, none of which apply). Please acknowledge."
I made some serious accusations there against you and asked for an acknowledgement of your error, and instead you've been dismissive - you reverted and didn't reply. That does not meet the behavior standard admins are supposed to hold themselves to.
You should change your tune, revert your edits to my comments, and address my concerns.
Or you can bully me into recognizing that, as is so often the case, the rules don't apply to administrators.
If you think the rules don't apply to administrators, please say so. I'll let your edit stand and won't bother you further.
Otherwise, I intend to revert your edit, and ask that you respect WP:BRD. Because I have now read Wikipedia:SPI/PROC and I see nothing that justifies your revert, which has the edit summary "Do not revert SPI clerks or CheckUsers at SPI, see: WP:SPI/PROC". And even if there was, you should be civil, especially when you've violated a core policy and are justifying it by referring to a procedure that's not even a guideline.
If there's a different way to appeal the close or reopen the case, or report add'l IPs Wikipedia:SPI/PROC doesn't mention it, or I missed it.
Also, you threw out the baby with the bathwater. I reported another socking IP used by the same user. You reverted MY WHOLE EDIT. WT? I ask that you disengage from this SPI case.
@Elvey: Yes, actually there is a different way to appeal the close: you could asked me politely on my talk page to explain you why I have closed the case. Instead, you reverted edits made by me and Mike V who is also a checkuser, which is very disruptive. WP:SPI is not a place for discussions and consensus, it is a technical area intended to investigate technical (and behavioral) data. It is governemd by certain procedures. Although those procedures are not labeled as "policy", they are result of a longstanding consensus, and as such are not to be disregarded. Procedures say that nobody may "change the status of an SPI case to anything except close". You changed the status of the case to "open". Procedures say that clerks may"remove or refactor (within reason) any material by any user that is not strictly relevant to SPI. This material should not be reinstated by anyone other than Clerks or CheckUsers". You reinstated material removed by me. So, it was you who disregarded the common SPI procedures, and then accused me of "violating policies". As about your request to run CheckUser in said case, I have to tell that it is simply impossible. CheckUser is a tool that is used to check IP addresses and other technical data of registered accounts. In this particular case, there were no registered accounts mentioned, and so there is nothing to check. Vanjagenije(talk)00:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and where did the rudeness start? You could have politely responded to my reopening of the case. But you didn't; instead you insist that doing so is "very disruptive" (I have no idea why.) You violated policy, which is very disruptive; that consensus cannot override policy is itself a well-established rule. So a bit of the pot calling the kettle black there. But OK, your procedure says it's OK, so let's drop it. In any case I did then come here and asked you politely on your talk page to explain to me why you have closed the case. But thank you for responding substantively on that point (though not on the main points I made, STILL). The other technical data is what needs to be checked, and it is available not just for registered accounts. I'd rather not point out what that is in public, so as not to help the bad guys; shall I email you or do you get what I'm talking about? Are you claiming that CheckUser is a tool that is ONLY EVER used on registered accounts? Oh, and your claim that "Procedures say that nobody may "change the status of an SPI case to anything except close""? I don't see that at all. In fact it says Any capable user... May add a Request for CheckUser to a case if likely to be needed by changing – This SPI case is open. to – A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.. Which is what I did. It IS true that "Procedures say that no ADMIN may "change the status of an SPI case to anything except close"". Admin. Not. User. In any case, can we please stop this silliness? What I care about: Please do the reasonable thing and respond to the still open sock puppet issues I raised, including each point I wrote at Reopening (here). You haven't even checked the new IP I listed, FS! --Elvey(t•c)01:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
And for crying out loud, you tell me "Yes, actually there is a different way to appeal the close" but don't tell me what it is. What kind of person does that? --Elvey(t•c)01:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
In the first sentence of my previous post, I told you what was the different way to appeal the close: the different way would have been if you asked me on my talk page. You have to understand what CheckUser is. It is a tool that is used to see underlying technical data (primarily IP address) behind registered accounts. When there are several accounts, this data can show if they are operated by the same person. CheckUser is also sometimes used to check for so called "sleeper accounts" (registered accounts that belong to the same person, but are not yet discovered). In both cases (comapring several accounts or looking for sleepers), CheckUser may be used only if there is very strong evidence and reason to use it. CheckUser may not be used (except in some very rare cases) to publicly connect registered accounts with their IPs (because of privacy). Checkuser can see what IP is used by an account (that is the purpose of checkuser), but may never publicly share that information. If a checkuser blocks an anonymous IP user and an account at the same time, even without any comments, it is still regarded as publicly revealing the connection, and is not allowed (because anybody can see in the block log that they were blocked at the same time). Sometimes checkusers run private checks to connect anonymous IP users with registered accounts, but they may not block them at the same time, and they may never publicly make any comment about that, they may not even say publicly that they made the check. In this particular case, there are no registered accounts mentioned in the investigation, so there is nothing to compare. Even if a CheckUser runs a private sleepers check (I guess that is what you want), he may not tell anybody that he made it. So, even if the checkuser was used in this particular case, you may not know that. Anyway, the user behind those IPs admits using them (here on my talk page), so there is no reason to investigate him if he admitted. Vanjagenije(talk)11:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. Something I understand about CheckUser is that I said 'The other technical data is what needs to be checked, and it is available not just for registered accounts. I'd rather not point out what that is in public, so as not to help the bad guys; shall I email you or do you get what I'm talking about? Are you claiming that CheckUser is a tool that is ONLY EVER used on registered accounts?' and I don't see a response. Apparently I do need to point out that this is what I'm talking about. What I understand but you seem to have missed is a part of the policy that you should be familiar with - but don't seem to be - which states (at WP:NOTFISHING): "it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded." It makes your removal of the CheckUser "Unknown regular user(s) temporarily logged out - active on MEDRS pages and opposed to rigorous evidence based-medicine" seem quite contrary tp WP:NOTFISHING). CheckUser can also be used to identify IPs that belong to the same person, but are not yet discovered - which one could call "sleeper IPs". It's equally true that "it is not fishing to check an IP where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded."--Elvey(t•c)08:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
More Aggression - reverts with no edit summary re. socks of un-vanished extreme pharma apologist protecting Chevron and its ilk.
I asked you to "disengage from this SPI case" due to your aggressively uncivil behavior. Instead, you remove obviously valuable and relevant to sockpuppet investigation information for reasons that, given the sock puppet's extreme bias, I AGF, but your refusal to provide reasons yourself, plus the general atmosphere of foot dragging and hostility makes me wonder about others' biases. If there's something you don't wish to disclose about this user on-wiki, feel free to email it to me in confidence if you think that'll help me understand. The guy sounds super reasonable in his posts above, but not when one delves deeper.
Can you please explain thesereverts of yours? You provided no edit summary. That's not civil, especially when the revert deleted this, The info after the IPs is NOT in the above tables. Please stop hiding this information. It's valuable for the SPI process. If you don't want it here, archive it, since you revert me when I add it directly and don't explain why, which is particularly odd since my last edit to the archive was allowed to stand. It's obviously valuable and relevant to sockpuppet investigation. --Elvey(t•c)16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goelia. Would it be possible to revert the disruptive activity that I mentioned there? Namely Goelia/Drüfft moved pages and prevented reverting those by creating false history (changing #REDIRECT → #Redirect); it would be helpful if you could move the page back to Hacı Bektaş Veli complex, or just delete the redirect page with the artificial history that he created, so that others can move it back.--Orwellianist (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There hasn't been any discussion about the name in the past other than what I wrote; it seems Goelia/Drüfft just edit warred to impose the name he preferred. He did the same thing when I explained in the talk page that no source uses the name he moves the page to; he again moved the page without replying, and did the same thing (#REDIRECT → #Redirect) to prevent a revert. Overall, two Wikipedians preferred the name Hacı Bektaş Veli complex, and there wasn't any legitimate opposition, just another user moved the page without bothering to join to the discussion it in the talk page. I'd say there is consensus here.
In any case, I am not saying you should decide what is the correct name for the article, just that this is inappropriate behavior that he kept engaging in through his sockpuppets; and an intervention by an administrator is needed to delete the artificial history he created to prevent other users from reverting his edits.--Orwellianist (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. He seems to have done the same thing when moving a page from Harutyun Shahrikyan, but I don't know if that was a controversial name change (though he certainly must have thought that it is, since he was trying to prevent others from reverting his move). He also did the same on Haci Bektas related pages: Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli complex, Hacıbektaş Museum, Hacıbektaş museum (the last two are interesting, they are not even moves, he created "#REDIRECT" pages and then immediately change them to "#Redirect", preemptively blocking future moves there), but there is no harm in their remaining as redirects.--Orwellianist (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The link he quoted also uses Haci Bektas and it doesn't say Haji Bektash even a single time, so it goes against his point. I honestly don't have any idea what he was trying to do. I happened to have moved the page back to Hacı Bektaş Veli complex before seeing your reply; but I would be open to discuss the issue in the talk page with anyone who is interested, it is a trivial issue anyway and it is not difficult to reach a consensus with good faith editors. Until someone joins do discussion to say otherwise, I think the current name is the best, it is the name used by UNESCO and most sources as far as I can see.--Orwellianist (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Nicat49 and Ulvi Rustam
Hello Vanjagenije,
I recently opened a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NovaSkola against NovaSkola and his new sock Ulvi Rustam. But I stumbled upon something very strange. Look at the user pages of both these accounts: [2] and [3]. What the hell is going on here? It's almost identical. Also, NovaSkola awarded this guy with awards the same way he awarded his other sock Yacatisma with. And it's NovaSkola that posted it directly on Nicat49's userpage! These two users have edited 129 of the same articles [4]. How is Nicat49 not blocked already?!
Anyways, I come to you because I know you have made your share of efforts to bring this up and perhaps you are more experienced with Nicat49 than I. I am curious to hear your opinion over this very serious matter. Thanks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what is going on here. I see from the archives where I was involved years ago but as I noted them, there's a lot of people who come here just specifically interested in the very limited articles on Azerbaijani sports (football really). The last editor was found to be unrelated even though there were able to recreate deleted articles exactly and those pages stood. Ulvi has been here since March 2015 with a small (relatively) number of issues. Sometimes I wonder if these sock hunts are really helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I think there was much more elaboration that needed to be done at the SPI. In addition to what I have said above, for example, Nicat49's favorite soccer teams on Azeri Wikipedia page seem to be the same ones on Ulvi's page, let alone the fact that it is the same favorite teams for almost every other sock as well. After this whole Ulvi SPI is done with, I plan starting an elaborate investigation into this matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
SPI on Sulmues, the wikipedian everybody hates
Hello Vanjagenije and thank you for your attention,
User:Gjidede, as I have clearly explained in my defense at the SPI is mine, but that's my last name, and I stopped using it. The other accounts are NOT mine. Have a great day and thank you for your work in wikipedia! MorenaReka (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Pumpie
Hi, Vanjagenije! Who at SPI (or elsewhere) might be considered an "expert" on Pumpie (talk · contribs)? I've been dealing with an IP-hopper who's been disruptively editing various Istanbul Metro-related articles and templates (esp. the M1 (Istanbul Metro) article) for months now, and I'm just wondering if editing Turkish metro-system articles is within Pumpie's usual M.O. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@IJBall: I identified several Pumpie socks, but that was more than a year ago, so I don't know if I'm an expert. I don't remember him ever using anonymous IPs. He was using registered accounts to (re-)create articles about metro stations in all parts of the World (including Turkey) and metro related templates. It was usually easy to spot him by watching deleted pages that he previously created. Vanjagenije(talk)02:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
that Jean-Baptiste Kléber is written with a hyphen. This is called assumption of good faith, I believe. But no, you've preferred to be disrespectful, and cheaply so. It is sad that Wikipedia is so full of people who'd rather be quite nasty than doing a quick search. You would have found this: [5], [6] and I would have a good opinion of you. --Edelseider (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
I am posting here because I guess it may be wrong to post on the page of a closed case? Howsoever, thank you for your care in the Douglas Cotton sockpuppet investigation.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you please check the validity of a user named "Mintytingy" for the possibility that they may using multiple accounts?. Based on the nature of edits (contributions) they are engaged in and the intended edits that they keep intending to make despite me correcting them, I suspect it's a sockpoppet of a previously blocked user called "MaronitePride" and a recently blocked "MyNewAccountName".
Well I don't, you could perhaps check the history of the "Lebanese nationality law" article, they seem to forcibly enforce the same edits. Check the revisions made by MyNewAcountName and the latest one by that new user. It's a just a bit less than identical. You could perhaps check the articles they're interested in based on the log/history. Interested in the middle east demography and the assyrians. Plus is it a coincidence that one's account went down and the other showed up? With them same views edits and interests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSakr1980 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The user we spoke on yesterday was confirmed as a sockpoppet. Well Thanks for your efforts and cooperation. I don't get why would he want to do this and break the rules on Wikipedia. The question is to how to prevent this from reoccuring? This user have created multiple accounts. Over 30-40 from what I have seen. Is there's a way to perhaps prevent it? and How to I report a sockpoppet user in the future if it ever happened again? Could you provide me with simplified instructions. That would be so helpful, Thanks again
@JoeSakr1980: Well, simply speaking, there is no way to stop prevent him from creating new accounts. When an account is blocked, wp:autoblock is activated, and it prevents creating new accounts from the same IP address, but it expires after a while. So, we can just monitor his favorite articles and wait for him to appear again. In the future, you can report sockpuppetry, as explain at WP:SPI, in a box titled "How to open an investigation". Vanjagenije(talk)10:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."
The following remedies have been enacted
4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Passed 13 to 2 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
My request on that page was primarily b/c I didn't know what I was doing or what I should be doing. However the issues on the article have been brought to others attention. And they are dealing with it. {{help-me}} template is a useful thing. If you want to just remove my request on that page it is fine by me. Thanks.Krj373 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Starship9000
Hi!
Thanks for your help at SPI. I have just gotten back from a looonnngg Wikibreak, and I saw this edit. It looked a little suspicious to me... do you think there's a connection? Thanks, GABHello!20:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vanjagenije, I'm interested in writing this bot if there is still a need for it. If so, would you be able to provide me with some other reference examples where the bot would be able to make some fixes? Cheers, FASTILY01:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fastily: Thanks, it is still needed, of course. I don't know how well are you familiar with the SPI pages. When a sockpuppet investigation case is filed, a page is created with the "Wikipedia:SPI/" prefix. At the same time, the page has to be tagged with a {{SPI case status}} template (usually with no parameter, but that is not important, example). Then we have a bot (Amalthea (bot)) that looks for those pages and adds them to the main list (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview). After the case is resolved, the page is archived and the {{SPI case status}} template is removed (example). The bot then removed the page from the list. But, sometimes an editor makes a mistake and created a SPI case page without adding the {{SPI case status}} template (example). The page is than not added to the list and gets lost. Now, excuse me, but I can't find more examples of such pages, because such pages are either (a) lost and I cant find them, or (b) fixed and I don't know where to look. Anyway, we need some kind of solution for that. Vanjagenije(talk)16:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You redirected 2015–16 FIS Ski Jumping Cup (FIS Cup) to 2015–16 FIS Ski Jumping World Cup (World Cup) and merged them as the same competition. You obviously don't know that much about ski jumping. It's not the same: FIS Cup is the lower competition and World Cup is another top level of competition. Please don't redirected it anymore.
This is actually entirely applicable for G13 (as have happened with all of the other tagged pages today), "applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits). This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as any userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template". SwisterTwistertalk20:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no. Having "Draft" would make it applicable, see "drafts in project space" (AfC projects) and "any userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace" (the AfCs is not explicitly important as it is still basically an AfC draft). Both RHaworth and Anthony Bradbury deleted this drafts earlier as such and G2 (tests) would also not apply as I've been told drafts are like sandbox areas, thus not actually tests-applicable. SwisterTwistertalk20:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response on the change name request for user "Les Bleues unofficial". Meanwhile I have created this new user (K.C. Ilsen), but can't seem to delete the previous one. Could you help with that, or perhaps advise what to do?
@K.C. Ilsen: User account cannot be deleted. You should continue using this new account, I'm going to re-block your previous account. You should have no problems, just don't create more accounts, please. Vanjagenije(talk)09:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not creating a fake page, I'm trying to create a real page. Could you pls tell me how to create this page and how to delete the "Les Bleues unofficial" one.
K.C. Ilsen (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
ok, sorry. I'm new to this and not really used to writing in code, so I hope I made the right changes now. One more question though. Can I change the page title? It now is "European Football: Women's Best Player of the Year", but it should become "Best Female Football Player Of The Year Award (Europe)". K.C. Ilsen (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@K.C. Ilsen: Article title can be changed by WP:Moving the page. While at the page, find a button that says "move" on the top of the page and move the article to a new title. Usually, moving is only possible after 4 days of editing, but I changed your status to "confirmed" so that you can move the page now. Vanjagenije(talk)16:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I know, I just wanted to inform you about the situation and his contribution history should be looked at. Given their similarities in their actions and behaviour, I really did suspect that Faster2010 and Ninjo2 are connected, but I admit that it was inconclusive at the SPI. As for new evidence, I plan to document it to build a solid case on a future SPI if there are no objections. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ponyo: I wrote that I moved the case to the oldest confirmed account. Promopersia is stale, and cannot be confirmed. And, there was already Turkspasha SPI page, so they had to be merged anyway. If you are sure Promopersia is the master, we can move the (merged) case back. Vanjagenije(talk)21:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Scibaby SPI, please see Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby, especially admins should absolutely avoid publicly discussing specific techniques and methods for detecting him. (Yes, the bolding is in the original.) I'd be glad to correspond about this offline but want to check first that you monitor your WP email. Thanks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. You warned Devil7592686.love for socking. I recognize this user. I remember a blocked editor claiming to be in England (userpage statement) but actually in India, having similar styles of editing, and, well, something else I cannot put my finger on. I just can't remember. Would you please let me know here or via email who this person's sock was? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So odd. I searched and didn't see the SPI. My mistake, no doubt. I've been working at lightning speed since my ISP speed is back up. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Please
Your edit at D47817 does not do you any credit. If you had left it with the comments, it would have been less of a mess. You now have december comments from Bahnfrend in the February section. Always better to leave alone, and even if you dont like it it is better to format separately. Now it appears really odd, so thanks for actually reviewing it, but by your removing my comments, it makes no sense. I would appreciate your re-doing that as two separate reports, and your being sufficiently mature to accept there was a delay and not messing up like tha. Thank you JarrahTree23:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
reverting an attempt to try to make sense of the case seems somewhat over - reacting. There are two separate cases, December and February. Please re-instate the separating between the two in whatever way you see fit. You have not given an explanation or edit summary to adequately explain either the removal of my comments, or the difference. Thanks. JarrahTree23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: Sorry, your comments were lost during the merge, and I reinstated them now. I don't see any mess, and I don't see any december comments [..] in the February section. Having two open investigations on the same user is not good practice, we merge them routinely. Vanjagenije(talk)23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No need to apologise, I havent seen merges like that occur before, but then I dont do many of these
I would have thought that the nature of the two points of reporting were best kept separate for the following reasons:
December, we (Bahnfrend and self) deliberately went and deleted all of the edits by the suspected sock, as there was no short term clerical activity at all, and on past behaviour it would appear removal of material would discourage the sock
February, to the best of my knowledge we havent touched the edits of the current suspect
@JarrahTree: It is obvious that Tolleykog was added later. I deliberately copied his name below the December evidence, to make it clear that he was added later. That is how it should have been done at the beginning. Having two separate open investigations on the same user is not acceptable. Vanjagenije(talk)23:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok at your end, that is the way you expect it, just accept also for the on the ground sock searchers, we dont see it that way, there are two separate events in time, and in the way we treated the issue. Keep up the good work! JarrahTree23:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Engleham
Appears to have been quite busy on his user talk page - I do not recall seeing any editor with so many revdeled edits in such short order, to be sure. Does it actually set a record? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello—wanted to ask about your "no consensus" closure of this. I thought it was clear that the keep votes were not based in policy. czar00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The ones who provided the sources still weren't sold on its notability, and the ones that didn't add sources gave a non-answer and cited a listing of what is very clearly passing mentions... I don't see what would count as a single substantive argument to keep. czar01:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: I don't see any serious refutation of those sources. I judge consensus on what was written in the discussion, not on what could have been written. Two users provided some sources (one of them was not sure that those sources are enough, I noticed that), and those sources were not effectively refuted by others. Vanjagenije(talk)01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
But if you're judging consensus based on what was written, @NinjaRobotPirate doubted that the sources he found were good, and I commented on the other sources. Not one editor said those sources were enough—that would be your inference. Sources presented in doubt do not become sigcov by virtue of having no following comment. If you still disagree, might I ask that you undo your close and see if another editor closes it the same? czar01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Still, NinjaRobotPirate was not arguing to delete. That shows me that he still believed those source are somewhat enough. No one else explained that those sources have no significant coverage. No, I will not undo the closure just because you do not agree. Vanjagenije(talk)01:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vanjagenije, I finished writing the script which looks for possibly malformed SPI pages. Here are the results: User:Fastily/Sandbox1. I think there are a few false-positives, but that just means that those pages need their caches purged. Let me know what you think. Regards, FASTILY04:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fastily: Wow! Impressive! I did not check all of them, but it looks OK. I didn't expect so many pages. What do you think we should be doing? Should the bot just list those cases on a page, or should he try to repair them by adding the {{SPI case status}} template? Vanjagenije(talk)14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This needs human review -- of the three I spotchecked, only one should be "repaired" with an SPI Case template (and then archived normally since it's years old). A few need to be repaired by merging a subpage with the main case page then archiving normally. A few need to be redirected. There aren't hundreds of them. But each required a case-by-case human review. I can get on them if y'all want? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉14:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: Yes, you can fix those pages, of course. The question is: how best to use the bot that detects such pages. Maybe a bot can add such pages to the main list with "unknown" status or similar? Most of them are years old, but when we fix them, we need a bot to detect new pages created without tag. Vanjagenije(talk)16:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding to the table with "unknown" status will conflict with the bot already updating the list and the bots will end up warring with each other. This would be best IF this functionality can be integrated with the existing updating bot. Otherwise, something like a weekly report on WT:SPI/C sounds ideal to me. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't exclude second level pages. Cases are sometimes created there (and/or on the talk page) when the main case page is protected or the filer is an IP, and unless we are pinged we may not find out about it right away. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview is, of course, the exception, as is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inputbox instructions for ad hoc requests (which IMO should be moved to another title and backlinks fixed anyways). What the about the WP:SPI/(name)/Report/### pages? These looks more like "additional evidence" than an actual report to archive, but I still think this content should be moved to the relevant case's archive page, otherwise nobody will ever know it even exists. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉23:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Inputbox instructions for ad hoc requests has no backlinks as I can see, so it can just be deleted. I do not see any purpose of that page. As about those "/Report/1235419871" pages, it seams that they were generated by some bot (User:SPCUClerkbot, some kind of bot version of myself ), but the bot has been inactive for more than 6 years. It seams that the bot was logging edits reminiscent of known sockpuppeteers to allow clerks to check them. But, those are all very old, so I think we can delete them. I can't find any evidence that they were actually used for anything. None of them were edited by anybody but the bot. Vanjagenije(talk)23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
For the "WP:SPI/(name)/Report/###" pages, I still think the CONTENT should be preserved -- that's very Wikipedian of me, I know. Maybe just C&P it into a collapse box at the top of the case's archive and delete the subpage? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉05:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a periodic report would be best, given how hard it can be for a bot to accurately fix broken SPI pages. I can have the bot run bi-weekly and post its findings to either an SPI subpage or on the clerk noticeboard, whichever is easier. I could add a rule to ignore second level pages, but if a newbie accidentally creates a subpage of an existing SPI page, then the bot would miss it; I'll let you make the final call though, do you still want me to do this? -FASTILY01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fastily: I've always wondered how many cases would turn up in this state, but never had any way of finding them. Thank you very much for taking on this task! —DoRD (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there @Vanjagenije:. I have a concern regarding your no consensus closure of Articles for deletion/Origin of the Bagratid dynasties. It is of note that both of the "Keep" votes cast in favor of the article are based not on the article's current condition, bur rather on a hypothetical premise that at some point in the future, the article will be rewritten into something more acceptable or expanded. In other words, their "Keep" votes are very much conditional. So my question is, who is going to enforce this condition? None of the "Keep" voters have taken responsibility to revamp the page, as they claimed possible. In fact, one of the "Keep" voters asked the article's original author if it was possible to improve the article, but the original author has made no promises either.
Generally, an article must meet Wikipedia standards as of present, not some imaginary future. If this was a relatively new article or a Wikipedia:Stub, giving it additional time to grow would be reasonable, but that is not the case. This page has been around in its current condition for a decade and there is no guarantee if, when and by whom it will be brought in compliance with the rules of notability and sourcing.--Damianmx (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Damianmx: If I was to vote, I would certainly vote "delete". But, the discussion, as it stood is clearly "no consensus". One of the main concerns was the notability of the subject (i.e. lack of references). In the nomination, you wrote that "it was unreferenced and written as a narrative with no clear sourcing" and that "the article [...] still lacks sourcing for essential points contained herein, some of which have remained unsourced for years". I have to notice that notability is not something that depends on the current state of the article. Subject is notable or not regardless of how the article looks like now. WP:SURMOUNTABLE is clear that articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet (and this is exactly what you are asking for). Vanjagenije(talk)10:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would you have voted delete, Vanjagenije? Is it simply an issue of sources? The subject seemed to me to have an obvious automatic notability, given that the dynasty and its branches unquestionably existed, and that articles exist on those branches. So I never bothered looking for sources to justify my keep argument (though I would expect that and any source that detailed the dynasty in detail would have a mention of its origin). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Re: Account mdte
You have flagged my account for two instances that are unwarranted. I am new to Wikipedia and only tried to change my user name mdte to my actual name Michael K Dane. I did all of the work in Sandbox and abandoned the effort when I discovered that I was unable to do it. Unfortunately, I could find no way of deleting the Sandbox file that I tried to amend. I would ideally like to be known as Michael K Dane, but if that is not possible, I would appreciate your help in removing the conflict and let me remain as mdte.
As for the image from the Tehran Journal, please be advised that the newspaper was published by Americans ex-pats in Tehran prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1978. The publication ceased to exist following the revolution and the publisher was disbanded therefore no entity holds a copyright for this material and it is considered to be in the public domain. The picture provides vital context and information that enriches the article on the Iranian National Ballet and as a former member of the Iranian National Ballet company (and depicted in the photo), I thought this information was important to share.
I have contacted the only known archive which may hold reproduction rights to this material from the Teheran Journal. I will let you know how they respond. In the meantime I have included the link to the archive.[13]
If you have any further concerns, please contact me.
You created two different user accounts: Mdte and Michael K Dane. You have also edited the user page of another user named Michael Dane. Wikipedia does not allow using multiple user accounts (except in some rare cases). You have to choose one account you want to use and stop using the other immediately. You can use this Michael K Dane account, but then stop using the other. You cannot rename your user account by yourself, you can request it to be renamed at WP:CHUS. Also, you cannot delete any page (including your sandbox) on your own, but you can request it to be deleted by placing this tag: {{db-user}} on the page. Regarding the image, as I know, the copyright is owned by the author of the photo, regardless of whether the publishing company exists or not. Vanjagenije(talk)00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, could you please expound as to why you think Semanti Paul (talk·contribs) (created in June of 2015) is a sockpuppet of WikiBriefed (talk·contribs) (which was created in October of 2015)? I, personally, don't think that this is in any way convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, nor even direct meatpuppetry between the two accounts. Furthermore, at UTRS, a CheckUser, DeltaQuad(t·c·b·p·d·m·r), stated that a connection "is Unlikely to the accounts listed in the archive on the SPI"; which furthers my doubt that Semanti Paul was used as a sockpuppet. But, I may be missing something that you're seeing as I imagine you have more experience dealing with this area. At any rate, any information you can provide regarding this block would be helpful for the requested review. Thanks in advance! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Coffee: Checkuser Mike V said that Semanti Paul is Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to WikiBriefed (see here). Besides that, they were both promoting boxofficeindia.com (BOI) as the only source to be used for Bollywood movies articles. You can read more about WikiBriefed's promotion of BOI here, caracteristic examples: [14][15][16]. Examples of Semanti Paul promoting BOI: [17][18][19][20][21]. Vanjagenije(talk)18:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mike V:, @DeltaQuad:, @Drmies:: Since you CUs have de facto authority on SPIs, I'd highly appreciate if you three could state what you think should be done on this particular unblock request/if you think there's enough evidence (behavioral and otherwise) to keep the block in place. Thanks in advance! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, "possilikely" etc. are way outside of my comfort zone. In case of doubt I ping a real CU: Bbb23. And if I want high-brow conversation and balm for the soul with my CU chat, I ping Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The technical data had some similarities, but wasn't super strong. That was one of the reasons I wanted a behavioral analysis, just to be sure. I'm willing to chalk up the behavioral similarities to a coincidence. We can give the user the benefit of the doubt and keep an eye out if we're still concerned. Mike V • Talk23:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So when I looked at things, I compared 3 accounts. Semanti Paul, WikiBriefed and Ambeinghari. When I'm looking for socks of each other, unless it's a static IP, i'm looking for a few things. 1) IP range/ISP overlap 2) Geolocation overlap and 3) UA overlap. There was no IP range overlap. Usually even if they try hard, they will mess up somewhere along the line and cross onto the same range if they are the same person. Furthermore, all three accounts use different ISPs. And it's not just a handful of edits im comparing, it's quite a few. I'm not a fan of the geolocation in the country that all three are in, but each account also geolocates to different cities far enough apart in this country. Lastly, IF they were using the same computer and just proxying (instead of going to a different location and using a different computer) the useragents would show cross over. WikiBriefed is using a lower version number than Semanti Paul of the same software. So that is also scratched out. There is also a similiar mismatch between all three accounts to each other. So right now, the only thing technically connecting them right now, is a country with crappy geolocation. I did not check behavior at all, but with this technical result, I'd be expecting just short of a WP:DUCK level to keep a block active. Barring that, I don't see enough to conclude these are sockpuppets, and then would say an unblock would be most appropriate. @Mike V: given my level of detail here. -- Amanda(aka DQ)00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I saw a UA overlap and a close geolocation when I saw the mid-September data. With that being said, I have no objections to an unblock. Mike V • Talk01:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw an actual UA match between Ambeinghari and WikiBriefed, but it's a common UA. The check of Semanti Paul was done by Mike. However, what I took from that muddled case was similar to Mike's: a behavioral analysis was needed; the technical data was insufficient to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for your extremely helpful input. Given the data here, I'm going to go ahead and accept the unblock request on the basis that the account was not used as a sockpuppet (even if the user was adding some of the same unhelpful content). We'll definitely keep a close eye on the account for any disruptive editing in the future... and I'll ensure to notify the user that they are on a short leash as far as promoting "BOI" in our articles here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for my stubbornness, but the references is quoted twice, although the word "racism" isn't exactly written, it still proves it. But i will not bother you with this.
--Albanian Historian (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank You and I want to delete the mdte page that I created
Thank You for your help. I want to delete the mdte page that I created so that I can only use the Michael K Dane page in future.
I followed your instructions and placed the code sequence you suggested, for deletion of my page, on the mdte page. I am not sure where to place it though. I don't want to keep logging into that name to try to delete it because I'm not supposed to use it.
Can you help me delete it and make sure I have no other page but Michael K Dane?
@Mdte: I'm not sure what exact page you want to delete? If you want to deleted your user account, I already explained you that it is not possible, the software simply doesn't allow that. And, if you want to use the Michael K Dane account, you should simply use that account and stop using the Mdte account. Vanjagenije(talk)00:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me to the requirements of Wikipedia user names. I have logged a request for a change in User name to reflect my status as a member editor of the non-profit NPU Terminology scientific committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPU Terminology (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I read everything and reviewed all the diffs you provided at the SPI. There is no point to send me the same diffs again. If you have some new evidence, OK. But, please, do not ask me to read the same evidence over and over again. Vanjagenije(talk)10:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vanjagenije, my bot account got blocked. The mistake I made is, I accidentally edited my Bot user page while I was looged into my bot account. Now I have edited my bot user page back from my main account.
Vanja, if you're holding off archiving this SPI because of Kashmiri's comments, please don't. I do not intend to respond to them at the SPI, and I doubt Louis will, either, although Louis's opinion on this issue is less relevant. I have very briefly responded to Kashmiri's complaint on my Talk page, but, even there, I do not intend to respond to their follow-up. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, the article was deleted due to the lack of reference. I was supposed to add them when I realized it had been deleted. I wish I had at least gotten a warning email about it.
My question is if there is any place where I can find the text I authored - I didn't save is elsewhere ad was not give a chance to improve it as it was simply deleted without earlier notice...
@Busa rakaf: Well, actually, you was given a warning on your talk page 7 days before the article was deleted, and the warning is still on your talk page. You had 7 days to respond but you did not. I undeleted the page and moved it to Draft:Burak Safa Çalış. You can work on the draft as long as you want, but I strongly recommend using the WP:AFC process. Vanjagenije(talk)00:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The only duplicate 'account' I have is a public IP that was used for edits before I made an account. What is the evidence for this claim against me or is it your personal assessment?
Blazinblaze (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije @Vanjagenije:
Your language is inappropriate. "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazinblaze (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 February 2016
User:Vanjagenije
1) It's *proven*, not proved.
2) proven only exists in proofs; it does not exist in the real world. Everything has a level of uncertainty.
3) you'll note Wikipedia makes no distinction between accused and proved in the above quoted section about appropriate use of language. It's inappropriate regardless of context.
@Blazinblaze: What exactly is your point? Do you want to say that you are actually not connected to Jadinet? That it is a pure coincidence that you two are editing the same article from the same place? Vanjagenije(talk)00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Vanjagenije
1) If you're going to police all the rules on Wikipedia, it's important you also follow them. That includes appropriate language. Think "community"
2) I find it highly unlikely this person is at the same place as me - show the CheckUser IPs or explain how we can see that. Transparency is important on Wikipedia.
I think you made a mistake (not just grammatical), especially when categorizing it as proved:
"Jadinet and Blazinblaze are between Unlikely and Possible"
@Blazinblaze: You don't need to ping me, this is my talk page, so I am automatically notified. And, please, start signing your posts. It is not possible to see CheckUser results because of Wikipedia's privacy policy (see: WP:CheckUser#IP_information_disclosure). "Between Unlikely and Possible" means that two accounts are operating from the same IP range. If we add that to the fact that your first and only contributions are to remove maintenance templates from an article heavily edited by Jadinet, it is clear that you two are connected. Vanjagenije(talk)00:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije:: You have a very low burden of proof. I don't know all the technical features and regulations of Wiki, so I can't stop you from abusing your power without considerable effort. At least the language ("it is clear") is slightly more appropriate for your actual level of certainty, barring any actual IP or statistical test.
Soft skin SPI
Hi!
I have found a very large number (30+) of past Soft skin socks (most of them blocked): [25]. Is it worth archiving them directly? Thanks, GABHello!14:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm interested in the SPI details in case for the future. What happens exactly? Do CheckUser tools limit it at 20 days? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: Are you talking about the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/166.170.59.238, the case you opened? First of all, CheckUser cannot be used for that case. CheckUser is a tool used to compare technical data of two or more registered accounts. You reported two anonymous IPs, and no registered accounts, so CheckUser has nothing to compare. IPs are usually dynamic, or semi-dynamic, and are often re-assigned. That is why we do not block IPs unless their disruption is ongoing. The IPs you reported have not been editing for weeks, and there is a great chance that they have been assigned to a different person in the meantime. That is why blocking them would probably make more damage than good. Vanjagenije(talk)21:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I thought CheckUser also checks the User agent. Websites like these educate people on how precise user agents can be at pinpointing unique users: https://amiunique.org/. I'd also ask about the specifics of this case because the IPs voted twice. A block means nothing but how about a casual approximation from you for the vote's credibility? Someone pointed out that it's likely but not guaranteed thus it wasn't fair for me to suspect them as the same person. But GeoLocate pretty much guaranteed that in my opinion. The periods after the votes were pretty unique as well. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: I don't know the exact nature of the discussion in which those IPs participated. But, I think that it is irrelevant for the discussion whether they are the same person or not. In Wikipedia, we do not vote (see: WP:NOTVOTE), we discuss and seek consensus. Comments are weighted by the strength of their arguments, not by their number. Vanjagenije(talk)22:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the information. I'm still new to some aspects. Sometimes it feels like on AfD the browsing admins just check the number of votes either way, so it's left a confused impression of the system to me. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you deleted Talk:Albanias Golgotha 1912 under G8, which makes sense. However, the author of the article contested the speedy deletion of that article after he blanked the page (but before the article itself was deleted). The article itself was deleted under G7, author requested deletion (explicitly or in this case by blanking) but he clearly didn't want the page deleted if he contested the speedy deletion after blanking it. Perhaps he thought he was obligated to delete the article given the fact that it was tagged for speedy deletion.
I tagged the article for G7, but I believe it was tagged for speedy deletion under another criterion originally. If that other criterion isn't valid, then can the article be restored or moved to draftspace or something like that? If it's clearly not a wikipedia article/copyvio, etc then obviously it should remain deleted. Kind of a confusing situation, but I hope that explains it to some extent. Thanks! Appable (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vanjagenije,
I tried to create a page for artist, Mark Boomershine, but you deleted it because "(A7: No credible indication of importance (real person) (TW))". He is indeed a real person and a well known artist. Please see his references below. I wanted to try to create his page again, but wanted to contact you first so that it would not be deleted again. Thanks, Fielding
Fielding90 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Fielding90: Your article (Mark Boomershine) was deleted for several reasons. It was about a person, but did not indicate the importance of that person in any way. It also did not cite any reliable independent sources. And, it was copy-pasted from [26], which is not allowed because of Wikipedia copyright policy (see: WP:Copy-paste). First of all, you have to write the article using your own words, not copying other's, that is copyright violation. Second, you have to cite reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject (see: WP:42). The article, as you wrote it had no reliable independent sources, the only source was subject's own web page, which is not independent. Also, most of the links you provided above are not reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Some of those were written by the subject (not independent), and some just mention him in passing (no significant coverage). If you want to create the article again, I strongly recommend using the WP:Draft namespace (Draft:Mark Boomershine) and the WP:AFC process. That way you will be able to work on the page as long as possible. Vanjagenije(talk)00:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of sock articles
But why did you removed deletion requests. Technical data are not the only one relevant, just look at that (edit) As a blocked sock puppet, articles should be deleted, as even without that, articles are quite POV and questionable. --Axiomus (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Axiomus: I know, that is my edit. Still, I am not 100% sure that they are the same. They are certainly connected somehow, buy I'm not sure they are the same person. Albanian Historian is not blocked as a soskpuppet, he is blocked as a sockmaster. If articles are POV, feel free to nominate them for WP:AFD. Vanjagenije(talk)11:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello there! I was wondering why you deleted my user page – or something on my user page – and what about it led you to categorize it as vandalism. I'm sorry if the 'Vandalism' and 'G3' labels are self-explanatory, but I'm a casual editor and not too savvy on these matters. Thanks in advance for your answer and/or feedback!
+ Kosovoslovenian (talk)Dean FosseyKosovoslovenian (talk) please dont remove my editing because it is right.If you think your editing is the "right" one send me
a msg at- qetidreni123@gmail.com
I have a question re: the correct SPI process for an issue. An IP user, 71.235.154.73, engaged in an edit war last year at ResellerRatings and was blocked. S/he then created a new user, NotTechimo, to get around the block and to impersonate me, and this user was blocked as well. Now this year on Jan 22nd, the user is back editing the same page from 71.235.154.73 (I'm not sure how, unless the block was temporary?) then 6 hours later, user ZeroShadows (with no prior Wikipedia edit history) began editing the same page and same content as 71.235.154.73, claiming on the talk page to be a different user. An admin semi-protected the ResellerRatings page due to the re-emergence of edits from 71.235.154.73, but it didn't matter because ZeroShadows registered and started editing the page. I believe that these are all the same user. I opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NotTechimo with NotTechimo as the master, but then I realized I probably should have used 71.235.154.73 as the master, because NotTechimo's use was stale (over a year ago) and the CU was declined, but 71.235.154.73 posted last month. I created a second SPI for 71.235.154.73 as the master, but it was deleted by an admin for being a duplicate. Here's the User compare report. What is the correct process for an SPI to determine if sock puppetry is happening here around the 71.235.154.73 and ZeroShadows users? Thanks. Techimo (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Techimo: You did it the right way. Master is always the oldest suspected account (registered account, not IP). You opened the SPI at the right place. Yes, the IP was blocked temporarily in December (for 36 hours only, see the log). IP blocks are always temporary because IPs are dynamic and are often resigned to different people. You did everything right, except that you requested CheckUser which is not possible in this case (but, it's not like you made a mistake, it happens often). CheckUser cannot check accounts that have not edited in more than three months, that is why your request was declined. Now, the case is waiting for behavioral investigation, since the technical investigation (CheckUser) is not possible. I'll take a look when I find time. Vanjagenije(talk)22:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Vanjagenije. My name is Mike and I am an employee of Nextiva, a page that you recently deleted on Wikipedia. I was informed of the deletion and offered to assist the company as I have previously edited Wikipedia and am somewhat familiar with the site. I see that you were the closing administrator and would ask that you undelete the article and restore it with a keep consensus. Despite there being delete votes at the end of the discussion, these were added after the discussion should have been closed. In addition, you say that you see no valid arguments for keeping, but I really see no valid arguments for deleting. There are many sources out there which are press releases or are in what Wikipedia may consider non-reliable sources, but there are many that are in reliable sources such as The Arizona Republic, LA. Biz, The Huffington Post, and more.[27][28][29] Please consider my request to undelete the article and allow it to be a Wikipedia page.--MikeBVIse (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I received a message from you that I don't understand
I received a message from you mentioning a user by the name of Brick Brick Brick, When I went online to see what was going on I found that my user name Michael K Dane has been deleted.
I have not even signed onto Wikipedia since we resolved the situation and you told me to stop using the MDTE name and use Michael K Dane and as you said there would be no problem.
@Michael K Dane: I did not send you any message mentioning any brick. I have no idea what you are talking about. Your user account is obviously not "deleted", since you are using it. By the way, user accounts cannot be deleted, the MediaWiki software does not allow that. 22:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I responded to your request for additional information. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. FYI, the article that was the subject of the socking was deleted, and an immediate attempt to re-create it was speedied. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Gushtaspp: The reason is explained in the blocking notice that I left on your talk page. If you want to be unblocked, you should log in to your original account and post an unblock request, as explained in my blocking notice. I also blocked your new account because of the WP:block evasion. It is not allowed to create new accounts to circumvent the block. Vanjagenije(talk)17:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed you deleted User:OpenMind/Liu Wanchuan per Zppix's G2 nom, which I was about to decline as according to WP:G2 it doesn't apply to pages in the user space? Am I interpreting this wrong?
@Stwalkerster: Yes, you are right, it was a mistake. I don't know what happened. I thought it was a WP:G6 case (Deleting userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text if the user who created the page has been inactive for at least one year), but this user is being inactive for 2 months only, so G6 does not apply neither. I am going to undelete the page. Thanks a lot. Vanjagenije(talk)19:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 March 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Projection panel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Proxima. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have posited that you have proven incapable to administer fairly or responsibly. Being a new user I do not know whether you were notified automatically.
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Regarding this SPI, is there any way you could kindly block the suspected master? Unless I am missing something (which is always possible), they appear to be unblocked. Thanks very much, GABHello!22:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Sir, I accept that all the accounts belong to
me. I am a new user at wikipedia and I
am still a child viz. -18 years old. I am
sorry for all the incidents and swear that
it will not be repeated next time. I am
very sorry. Forgive me if U can. I am a
lower secondary level student. Sorry, for
that. I am very sorry. Please, forgive
me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thitojhapali (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Vanjagenije, I choose this title (instead of mentioning the oldest account) because I found it wasn't a realname as the second one is. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vanjagenjie. I tried to add a new IP account to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive because I seems to be the same user at it again. Not sure if I posted my request in the right place or posted it correctly. Would you mind taking a look at letting me know if I should post the new information somewhere else. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
