User talk:DoRD/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Odd socks

Hi DoRD,

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cognoscerapo, you said that User:Cannot be detected was likely to be Sinbad Barron.
How did you make the Cognoscerapo - Sinbad Barron connection? I'd like to detect socks better, and I'm not very familiar with Sinbad Barron. Presumably Sinbad Barron is stale from a checkuser perspective so there are fewer privacy concerns, but if you're not allowed to say, you don't have to.
In the past there has been some confusion around who controls which socks - there are several examples like Neutral Fair Guy. I'm certainly not criticising other people who have tried to identify sockmasters and clean up the mess - it's just that an environment with multiple overlapping sockmasters (and a few false-flag accounts) makes it very difficult to be certain of the owner 100% of the time...

Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, after going back over the evidence, I have had to change my conclusions in the case. I'm not very familiar with Sinbad Barron, either, but I did see one possible connection from Cannot be detected. However, the account's contributions and some other technical evidence point squarely at Evlekis, so I amended my statement. Granted, it is sometimes difficult to sort out the true master behind sock accounts, particularly with certain ISPs, but I took my best guess. Unfortunately, it was wrong this time. Thank you for prompting me about this. —DoRD (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Socks

Hey, based on this, I'm assuming that Qasaasassa (talk · contribs) is a sock also, but I can't tell from your block who is the banned user.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Those accounts, Adaasads (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Qasdssaassds (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are

Confirmed socks of Jude Enemy. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you don't tag them? Any objection to my tagging them?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There are two reasons I don't bother tagging most LTA socks: WP:DENY and because there are simply so many of them. DENY isn't really in play with this guy, he's just very persistent about getting his imaginary record company into the encyclopedia, so feel free to tag them if you wish. These particular socks usually show up in edit filter 58 and/or 583 if you're interested in tracking them. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm assuming that Swagalicious22 (talk · contribs) is not a Jude Enemy puppet?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in their behavior to indicate that they're related. —DoRD (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is a user being a jerk and kicking up a huge fuss about things against any rules?

I have send user Niteshift36 a message about his behaviour that was just so horrible that I just could not resist speaking up. He responded by calling me a troll. So I do not think he'll respond to users calling him out on his behaviour. I'm not sure if there's a wikipedia policy handling (Personal attack removed), so I'm asking you here. :)

An example of his lovely demeanour: Talk:Fox_News_Channel --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You own words show your error. You said "I have send user Niteshift36 a message about his behaviour that was just so horrible that I just could not resist speaking up" You cited nothing specif, just came to my page, littering it with comments like "I can't resist letting you know how disgusted I am with your attitude"[1]. That's not constructive. that is you making a personal attack. That's your personal opinion about conduct, not a discussion about a specific edit as it pertains to a policy. Then you come here and use words like "douchbaggery" and "jerk". I'm sure DoRD will be able to explain to you why you've handled this wrong from the start. On top of all of this, I haven't edited that article since Sept. Breezing into my page 3 months after the fact to express your opinion is not going to be productive either. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I did cite your comments on Talk:Fox_News_Channel both here and in my comment to you, Niteshift36. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with quoting part of my message out of context. --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, your personal attack here is out of line, and I caution you against doing it again. In any case, I don't have any idea of what behavior you are referring to. —DoRD (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for making it sound like a personal attack. I suppose I let my emotions get the better of me. I am referring to his comments on the previously linked talk page. Here it is again for your convenience: Talk:Fox_News_Channel

If the attitude and the language he used there are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia I can accept that as an answer and I can adjust my expectations of wikipedia accordingly. I just wanted to run it by an admin to check, rather than to just assume things. I appreciate the time you're taking to clear this up. --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What you may not realize is that the person I was in a dispute with is an admin. He's perfectly capable of handling it and navigating the system. I'm sure that if he felt action was needed 3 months ago, he knows where to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, I read about 2/3 of that talkpage ... still not sure what I'm looking for that would lead to "jerk" or "douchebaggery" suggestions. Nothing that violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Maybe a little WP:BATTLE going on, but unless I see a WP:DIFF that shows violations, it's simply someone passionately defending a position when backed into a bit of a corner. Oh, it was also ages ago. ES &L 19:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of saving time, a number of editors participated and the material was included in a way that satisfied both sides..... 3 months ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36, thanks for repeatedly telling me it was 3 months ago. Though that really doesn't answer any of my questions plus I already knew this because conversations have dates on them. DoRD, would you say you agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves's conclusions? --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you caught the not so subtle hint. Dragging up something that was resolved 3 months ago is usually not the norm. Many pages would have already archived that discussion. I'd also note that ES&L made a point of the issue being "ages ago" as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's all very nice, but I'm here to ask questions about what is acceptable behaviour or not. So what does it have to do with anything? You're responding to every last message defensively, as if you think I'm here to complain to the Head Master. Kindly stop. I'm just looking for my answers, and then I'll adjust my expectations of Wikipedia as needed and I'll move on. -2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You've heard a couple of answers: Two admins have told you that your conduct is out of line. One of them directly said he didn't see anything wrong with what I did on that talk page. And why would I be defensive? It's not like you've engaged in personal attacks. Oh wait, you DID, more than once. Put the whip away, the horse is dead. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rude impostor

Someone pretending to be you made a few vandalistic edits (see [2]) to user talk pages. The person linked to your user page in the signature and my talk page, so a person complained to me on my talk page despite me not having made the edit. They have been blocked. I have an idea who is responsible, but it's just a hunch. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm about 99.6% certain who it was, based on the fact that you blocked some sleeper accounts of theirs a few days ago. Shocking. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that I have blocked a number of his socks in the last couple of days, I'm guessing that it's Evlekis again. —DoRD (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC) ...annnd

Confirmed, of course. —DoRD (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

checking

I do not have any edit war with User talk:LordFixit but User talk:Tco03displays, the first user seems to be a newcoming in this case very relative to the second. Also, there is no particular reason for a user, but be suspicious for a likely sockpuppet to refer it for checking.--Katcheic (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Katcheic, you are welcome to submit a sockpuppetry case, of course, but I can tell you that there is not enough evidence to make a convincing case. —DoRD (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't quite the suspicion? Could they please run a checkuser so I can use it as evidence? --Katcheic (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, and as it says here, that section of the page can only be used for a "situation that does not involve sock puppetry". If you wish to go forward with a sockpuppetry case, you must follow the instructions at the top of WP:SPI. It is against checkuser policy to run a check without proper evidence, so no CU will run a check to provide evidence for you. —DoRD (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ιn any case, τhe edits are enough to form a suspicion.--Katcheic (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that the "same edit summary" they used is mostly generated by the Wikimedia software when one uses the move page command, and that their edit summaries are almost the same as the ones from you when you moved the page. I'll say it again: Just because two editors disagree with you doesn't mean that there is sockpuppetry involved. However, if you still feel like pursuing this, you must file a case as I have pointed out - you cannot use a Quick CheckUser request for suspected sockpuppetry. —DoRD (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Kim Hyun-jung (singer)

I've listed the accounts from oldest to newest. The only support I have for possible sock puppetry is the SPA-like behavior in the article, the edit warring, and the fact that accounts keep popping up as the article gets more and more push-back from experienced editors. I can't act on my own because I'm WP:INVOLVED. Rather than taking it to SPI (partly laziness), I thought I'd ask your views. It's possible that they are just meat puppets or even unrelated fans, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking back in the article history, I see User:Khj0604, with the same "khj" as the first account above, but that is obviously a reference to the singer's name. As for these accounts, there is enough similarity in the behavior, so I checked and found that they are

Confirmed to be one in the same. If you want to open a case, I'll comment there as well. —DoRD (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been so busy with IP proxies that I didn't notice your response. Is it better to open a case rather than just block them? Seems to me I could block them based on the confirmation even though I'm involved. I'll do whatever you think best.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I went ahead and blocked all three. —DoRD (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible sock of Evlekis

Hello DoRD, I was wondering if 188.29.107.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) can be tagged and blocked as a possible sock of blocked sockpuppeteer Evlekis (talk · contribs), as they have similar behavioral characteristics and the IP has been making personal attacks against the clerks working on Evlekis's sockpuppet investigation page. Happy holidays, Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The range has been blocked, but dynamic IP addresses like this should not be tagged. Happy holidays to you as well. —DoRD (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Should there be a WP:LTA case on Evlekis? This sockpuppetry has been ongoing for many months now, with dozens of sockpuppets. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Surprise...

I am quite surprised with the outcome of the MfD against Ivan Clarin. Do you have a link for the background of your action (blocking for sockpuppetry) because I guess we will see that guy again. The Banner talk 18:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a link yet. The case is under discussion, and I will have more information in a few days. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will wait. The Banner talk 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

My page looks fixed this morning and thank you! Merry day after Christmas! B17 12:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait -- I just saw that my request was declined (though I can edit). What does this mean? Are my edits okay? I just think political terms don't belong in the first paragraph of entries on poets but in a "personal" section. Is this about that? B17 12:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bseventeen (talk • contribs)

Hello again -- I was blocked for a few minutes and then I logged back in and can edit again. Could you explain if I am doing anything incorrect? B17 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC) thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bseventeen (talk • contribs)

Bseventeen

I reblocked Bseventeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) directly, based primarily on the same evidence that made me believe the range block was working properly. Intervene or not as you see fit.—Kww(talk) 01:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but it looks like the block is warranted. Just from their talk page edits, they seem to be very unfamiliar with how things work around here. —DoRD (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had some further discussion with the editor (on her talk page). Can you check to see if her explanation of her editing history correlates to reality? Or is it all through Powerhouse Management IPs?—Kww(talk) 23:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping?—Kww(talk) 21:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm not sure how I missed your question, but the account has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Critic11 by myself and Jpgordon. —DoRD (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hatting at the RfA

Hi DoRD. I really don't think you should have done that. In one edit, you simultaneously made your own comment and hatted the discussion. I'm sure you wouldn't have meant it like this, but be that as it may, that looks like grabbing the last word. Either discuss or hat, but not both. The officiousness that was going on in that thread may not have been germane to this RfA, but it would have been worth dealing with anyway. All you said was that it isn't a block reason. That's true, but an editor who objects to a user's real name because one of its syllables coincides with a nasty word in English (not the language of the real name) needs dealing with. That's a bit more important than keeping the RfA pristine, isn't it? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I went there intending to hat part of the discussion, but ended up commenting as well, so I will go ahead and unhide the discussion. Thanks for the note. —DoRD (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sock investigation

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Mohammad Khilji.

Notifying you due to your prior investigation of related case.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Limbojazz

When you have a moment, please take a look at the above talk page. I'm inclined to accept their unblock request. Tiptoety ^talk 05:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tiptoety. Have you seen the remarkably similar unblock requests from some of these accounts? Frankly, the explanation that the other accounts belong to a friend rings hollow with me. —DoRD (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, hadn't seen those. I'll defer to your judgement. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Spambot farm?

I noticed Mr51ronju seems to be a spambot and was about to AIV him when I noticed this. Is that good enough grounds to run a CU to see if there's more spam from the same source? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I frequently find spambot farms in that filter, so after taking a look, I blocked three accounts. (It appears that I selected the wrong block reason for one...) Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on these. —DoRD (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

CU

Hey, DoRD, when you get a chance, could you check this out, to see whether it needs adjusting up or down, based on collateral damage potential? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else got it. Thanks anyway! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I see. Sorry I missed you, but I've got to sleep some time ;) —DoRD (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa

There has been a fair amount of block evasion from IPs of the master. I haven't yet blocked the latest IP, although I'm prepared to do that as it's obvious. However, I'm trying to determine whether a range block is justified, what it should be if so, and what the impact would be. According to MediaWiki: "The best guideline for assessing collateral damage for an IPv6 rangeblock is to check the WHOIS and actual amount of activity from the range." The master appears to be always editing from 2605:E000:: - 2605:E000:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF, but I don't see how I'm supposed to see activity from that range. I'm not great with range blocks of IPv4 addresses, but at least I have a bit better grasp of it. I've never range blocked Pv6s. What do you suggest? Any extra tutoring on the issue would also be helpful (). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bbb23. I'm not particularly well-versed with IPv6 yet, but I can tell you this rule of thumb: Comcast, Time-Warner RoadRunner, AT&T U-verse and many other residential ISPs allocate a /64 block of IPv6 addresses to each customer. Since this is RoadRunner, it is probably safe to say that the customer's IP address is 2605:e000:96c0:af00::/64, so it can be blocked without affecting anyone outside their household. For some basics of IPv6, you might want to take a look at User:Jasper Deng/IPv6. Also, the IPv6 range calculator I typically use is this one, if you're interested. As for seeing a range's contributions, as far as I can tell, the contributions gadget doesn't work for IPv6 addresses, and other than CU, I don't know any way of viewing them at one time. —DoRD (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

When I use 2605:E000::/64 in your calculator, it says the number of IPs affected is 18446744073709551616. Is that to be read as a "normal" number? If so, it's staggering. Am I missing something, or it just that there are so many IP addresses available, it's not that big a deal for an ISP to allocate that many. BTW, according to the WHOIS, Time Warner allocated 2605:E000::/32, which is an even higher number. I started reading Jasper's page, and, as usual, I followed it in the beginning and then get lost because most of these kinds of pages skip steps they assume you already know. It seems to say that a range block of /64 is okay at one point, but then I lost the thread when I plowed on.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the IPv6 address space is so large (2¹²⁸) that it is inconsequential to allocate a /64 to one customer, and when I see a need to block an IPv6 address like I mentioned above, I almost always nuke the entire /64 because blocking a single address (out of 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 available) is bound to be ineffective. For practical purposes, you can consider an IPv6 /32 to be the same as an IPv4 /16 block, but CU is currently limited to checking /48. Jasper also has a less daunting guide. Anyway, I have gone ahead and blocked the /64 for a month, but certainly feel free to extend it as necessary. —DoRD (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've saved the most stupid question for last, which is how do you issue a range block. None of the pages I've looked at tells you the mechanics for administrators. From looking at your log, I'm guessing that in the address to be blocked I stick in "2605:e000:96c0:af00::/64" without the quotation marks. Is that right? Is there anything else I need to do?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. You can specify anything from the abbreviated notation (2605:e000:96c0:af00::/64 up through a full address (2605:E000:96C0:AF00:C8DF:7C1A:6D08:71A8/64) and MediaWiki will do the rest. I don't know of any particularly good references, unfortunately, but here are the official instructions: mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. —DoRD (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of that page, but I didn't see anything on it that said how to do it on the block form. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctorlaw

Can I move this to the correct master while it's both archived and not archived? I've never done it in that state before. I started to do it but then chickened out. The SPI clerk procedures don't address it precisely.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd leave it where it is unless there is some pressing need to move it it the older account. But yes, it can be done by moving the archive and the active case separately and then archiving. —DoRD (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm happy not to change the master - less work for me - but I'm curious why you think it should remain as is. Rschen has now archved the report, but I'd like a little more explanation for the future. Are you saying I would have done two separate moves, archives first? I remember when I started the move process thinking I would do one move that there was a box to move subpages (which I never check). Would checking that have allowed me to do one move?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

People know the sockmaster as "Doctorlaw", so that's why I said that, but I'm not able to dig into the case at the moment (I'm stuck on my iPad for the weekend) so I could be giving less than optimal advice. ;) As for the move, yes, I suppose the move subpages option would work. You'd want to leave a redirect for the main page, but not for the archive, though. —DoRD (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I try not to edit using touch screen devices I own. I'm always afraid I'll screw things up. There's a note in the case now that Globalprofessor is the oldest known confirmed account. I'm going to assume that your possible "less than optimal advice" is sound (

). If you change your mind, let me know. Thanks, as always, for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

My Apologies

My apologies for the frivolous Sock Puppet report. I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time, I truly am. It was not my intention. I seem to have misunderstood the process. If somebody would be so kind as to visit my talk page and suggest how I should best proceed about this IP editor, I would really appreciate it. Thank you all for your time, and again I apologize for the trouble. be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sue, I apologize for the delayed response, but your apology really wasn't necessary. Looking through the anon's contributions, it is pretty clear that they are not new to the project, but beyond that, I have no idea who it might be. By logging out to edit, the editors you mentioned in your report would have little to gain, but much to lose if caught. Clearly the anon is at odds with you over gun control, but while their editing - particularly their edit summaries - may be contentious, I didn't see anything that looks like an attack to me. If their behavior escalates, I will be glad to look into it, though. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BASC

Hi DoRD. You blocked me on June 16, 2013. My talk page and email got revoked by another admin called Elockid. I Know you think I might sock again but this is important: Can you restore iPhonehurricane95's talk and email because I need to submit an appeal at WP:BASC. Thanks, Phonehurricane95 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No. You may email them directly through the mailing list as detailed here. —DoRD (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a query

Is there a particular reason for a block of "1 year, 364 days, 18 hours, 10 minutes and 48 seconds"? Would it be different if a leap year came into it? Peridon (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen blocks like that before, and I'm sure that the original block length was specified as 2 years, but for some reason, the software spits it out like that. I guess it's close enough, though. Strange bug, maybe? —DoRD (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit like some of the early models of calculator - which would display 9.9999999 instead of 10 on some calculations. This block is at 67.187.21.48, who is combining whining and ranting. Peridon (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CHECKEDUSER

What case was this related to? Because my dear friend is back and stirring up shit seeing as no one did a check on them the last time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at that account due to the suspicious username, but it appears that they are related to the blocked accounts in the recent Zarbon case. If you give me a username or IP, I will see what I can do about it. —DoRD (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I had recently identified the sockmaster as Dragonron (talk · contribs) and made a case that was closed with no action and now there is a misplaced open case with a new sockpuppet found.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. I'll comment at the IHeartUM case in a bit, but I've just blocked three related accounts. —DoRD (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you also help me deal with the user who this guy keeps leaving messages? X96lee15 refuses to allow me to remove the trolling from his user talk because me doing so apparently violates WP:TPO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a look after I deal with the Dragonron stuff. —DoRD (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty sure that X96lee15 is aware that you object to the edits by Dragonron and their socks, but it is also clear that X96lee15 objects to you removing the edits from their talk page. My suggestion to you is to stop watching X96lee15's talk page. Dragonron is posting there simply to annoy you, and another facet of DENY is a refusal to react to trolling. I also suggest to X96lee15 that they consider removing the trolling when they see it. There is no harm in removing it, and as I said, its only purpose is to harass another editor. I know that this isn't an ideal solution, and my dispute resolution skills may not be the best, but this is the way I see it. —DoRD (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I will revert any future trolling on my talk page related to Ryulong. The bigger problem is, IMO, his reverting of changes to my talkpage. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I never watched his talk page. I would not be alerted to edits there if I did not go through sock account edits and find he's sent him a stupid warning about me. And I wouldn't revert if you didn't revert. The content should not be there and it should not matter who removes it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought before bed

Do you remember the 'Cody' sockpuppets? I'm wondering about the recent arrival of Cody the history man... Peridon (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That rings a bell, but I can't put my finger on it at the moment. At any rate, I blocked Cody and his friend as VOAs. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that's what I had in mind - I'm thinking of something more recent. Anyway, this Cody and his friend were editing from a school, so it could just be the typical bored-kid-in-the-computer-lab vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Finke is what I couldn't remember. Peridon (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.188.32.225

In regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.188.32.225 what you are missing is that User talk:69.119.124.12 has quite openly said on the Talk:Chattan Confederation page that No worries about the IP Address, I'll just change it again !! What he is saying is that he will change his IP address to avoid blocks. Yes the two IP addresses have edited at completely different times and yes the first one is no longer blocked but I know that it is the same user through my experience. Surely if someone is admitting that: No worries about the IP Address, I'll just change it again then he clearly trying to evade the admins on Wikipedia and something should be done about it.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Without evidence that blocks have been evaded, simply threatening to change IP addresses isn't sockpuppetry. There are hundreds or thousands of editors using that ISP, so there is no way we can sift through all their contributions to find out if the threat has been carried out. If you find evidence, I'll be glad to look at the case again. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Even though he has admited that he has already changed his IP address in malice ? noting that he uses the word "again". Well it looks like again, once he gets going I will have to go through the procedure of reporting him to admin for vandalism.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't just block the latest IP because they say they have changed their IP address. We require evidence that they are actively socking or evading a block. Even with evidence, blocks are ineffective if the user can change addresses at will. —DoRD (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane95 Sockpuppets

You commented that the IP Address from which he was operating were very mobile. But wouldn't a rangeblock work on that IP Range? And if it can't, then I think that we need to take this to the Wikimedia Foundation Admins. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We risk blocking a lot of innocent people in the process. And the same would be true if we referred this to m:Stewards. --Rs chen 7754 07:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I wrote that it was a "very busy mobile" range, and Rschen7754 is correct, many innocent editors would be affected by a block - what we refer to as collateral damage. —DoRD (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why don't we exempt the innocent users/IPs? That is something that admins are able to do. Also, we had to resort to at least two Rangeblocks in the past to stop his vandalism, once in February 2012, and another time in August 2013. At this point, I think that a 1-2 year rangeblock of his IP Range may be our only solution at this point, especially if IpH95 continued creating new socks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't for IPs, especially dynamic ones. --Rs chen 7754 02:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So... You're saying that there's nothing we can do to stop him? Are rangeblocks (or global blocks for that matter) actually useless against his current IP Range? There has to be something else we can do besides sitting there and waiting for him to make his next move. From his history of editing, it has taken long-term Rangeblocks to stop him, as noted here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked mobile ranges before - one sockmaster forced me to block several ranges from this same mobile provider, in fact. I'm not willing, however, to block this particular range as it is far too busy. What was done in the past is not applicable today. —DoRD (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean that this range changes too often? But if that's the case, isn't there something that we can do? Would taking this to the Wikimedia Foundation admins help? LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by Wikimedia Foundation admins. --Rs chen 7754 04:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean the Wikimedia Stewards, or it could be the people who are in charge of Wikimedia. I think that we should request a Global Block on IPhonehurricane95 and all of his associated sockpuppets and IP Ranges. If this doesn't work, then an admin should create a bot that automatically blocks/reverts the edits of any and all accounts originating from this sockmaster's IP Range. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

One thing that does work is WP:DENY. I think that all the attention that you are drawing to this is just making him want to cause more disruption. --Rs chen 7754 06:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that attention has a lot to do with it. However, if I stop, it wouldn't help anything. He was vandalizing long before I picked up on him, and he will still vandalize as often as he wants to, as long as he is able to create more socks. PS, the rangeblock calculator indicates that his IP Range is 0.0.0.0/0. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The range block calculator has apparently been given invalid input, as that is the entire IPv4 address space. —DoRD (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I know, his IPs are all over the place, which makes it that much worse. However, blocking the following ranges would cover all of his IPs, and should still be just as effective: 192.0.0.0/3, 42.0.0.0/9, and 64.0.0.0/2. I highly recommend 3-5 years, given his pattern of vandalism and a refusal to stop sockpuppeting. If I'm wrong and there was an invalid imput, could you please use this link to calculate his IP Range, given the data of his IPs in this list? LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, the software won't let us block any ranges larger than /16, and even then, we only block that many addresses in cases of extreme abuse. So, no, those suggested blocks won't be happening. —DoRD (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See this threat. Can we please have his current IP Range blocked for 1-2 months? Even if it takes multiple rangeblocks to cover his current IP Range, his history of editing and his current pattern of vandalism/sockpuppeteering certainly warrants this. If a rangeblock wouldn't work, then we need to take this to the Wikimedia Stewards. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocks have already been placed. —DoRD (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You realize that all stewards can do about the matter is rangeblocks, right? --Rs chen 7754 09:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Eh, not really. But if it works, why bother with it? Wait... Is this guy under a rangeblock right now?? LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The whole point is that stewards would have to place such large rangeblocks as 192.0.0.0/3, 42.0.0.0/9, and 64.0.0.0/2 in order to get him to stop. And that is something that stewards definitely will not do; there would be much more collateral, and they would definitely have their steward bit removed if they did that. --Rs chen 7754 09:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sucks for us. But if the vandalism continues, or even worsens, this sort of action would need to be taken if it truly is the only way to make him stop. By the way, is this guy rangeblocked right now? If he is, we might not see him again for a while. PS, the IP Range 192.0.0.0/3 had been rangeblocked by another admin before for 1 1/2 months, under 3 separate rangeblocks in February-March 2012, due to excessive vandalism and IP socking from IPhonehurricane95 (while he was operating under the username of Typhoonwikihelper).

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Yoke Llully

My apologies for picking on you again. Think of it as a tribute to your approachability and knowledge. :-) I wanted to leave this message for Reaper Eternal because he's had more experience with this report, but he's been busy in real life and not active here for over two weeks. The problem is most of the puppets are blocked with User:Soapamalkanmaime as the master. Yet, there is no report for Soapamalkanmaime and thus there's no link to the correct report on the user pages. I'd like to move the report to Soapamalkanmaime as the master and then change the few tags there are for Mr Yoke Llully to Soapamalkanmaime so everything is consistent. In fact, I have this problem when I block a new puppet on duck, which happened recently, without opening up the SPI. I tag them as Soapamalkanmaime, but each time it bothers me. Do you agree that I should do this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm heading out for the evening, but I'll take a look at the case, etc., in the morning. —DoRD (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay...well, I suppose a move to that account would be fine since that is how the socks have been tagged and how the cats are named, but the oldest account I saw in the case was Keepsgames (talk · contribs). —DoRD (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't even see that, so should I still stick with the Soap account or make Keep the master on everything? And while I'm waiting your response, forgive me for asking sort of the same question I asked earlier, but as the report is now archived, can I just move the report and the archive will go along with it, or do I have to check subpages when I move the report (someone ought to write a script for lame people like me)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd go with Soapamalkanmaime so that I didn't have to retag the socks and rename the cats, but YMMV. And yeah, the "move subpages" checkbox should take care of the archive, but like I said before, you'll want to go back and nuke the archive redirect afterward since it is unneeded. —DoRD (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll try to take care of it tomorrow. I'm kinda tired now and will soon go off-wiki and on to dinner and relaxation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's done. I could swear I've done this before without moving the archive subpage, and it worked, but I was too chicken to try it, particularly because I wasn't sure how I would undo it if it didn't work. I've also changed all the puppets to point to the Soap account. Right or wrong, it's now consistent.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Dragonron

I found the original master is User:Wiki-star. I also have a thread at WP:ANI#Wiki-star. Can you block his range already?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of IPs have been blocked, but like I have said, I am not comfortable blocking the mobile range. —DoRD (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well could you at least semi-protect X96lee15's user talk? He keeps restoring Wiki-star/Dragonron's edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If X96lee15 requests that their talk page be protected, I will consider it. —DoRD (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:TranquilityResides

I see you CU-blocked him, so I thought I should let you know he is mentioned in an ongoing SPI, in case you didn't already know that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Someone not using his real name, I have commented at the SPI. —DoRD (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:SweetPotatoSalad

Is Beautyfrisco (talk · contribs) a sock of SweetPotatoSalad?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question, but CU didn't give me the answer I was expecting. This account isn't even close technically or geographically to Dragonron, aka SweetPotatoSalad, TranquilityResides, etc. —DoRD (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Legoktm has indeffed the new user for block evasion (not unreasonable based on duck, but ...). Meanwhile, User:Ryulong, who can be headstrong, has twice removed Beautyfrisco's report at WP:AN3, even though the first time I told him to leave it for an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I heard the quacking, too, but I can only guess that this is either MEAT or someone else trying to get Ryulong in trouble. <sigh> —DoRD (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Hi DoRD, could you help me with a couple unblock requests? It relates to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hhighimpact059/Archive. User:DIZwikwiki and User:PrestonDorey were both marked as confirmed by Tiptoety and I blocked them. They have each posted unblock requests claiming that it is a false positive as they are coworkers and share the same IP for that reason. I'm hesitant to unblock at this point since I can't verify whether their explanations match the evidence, I think it would be best if a checkuser were to comment on that first. I've asked Tiptoety and another checkuser to comment on whether the evidence matches their explanations, but neither of them have done so. Could you look into it? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Mark, I'll take a look at them in the morning. —DoRD (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark, except for Hhighimpact059, the accounts listed in the SPI are Technically indistinguishable, but it is also possible that the IP they're using is a business connection. —DoRD (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for looking into this. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Most active checkuser by a large margin for two months in a row! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark! —DoRD (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

On Range blocks ACC

Thank for putting the comment about rangeblocks for the ACC process as it is good to avoid the backlog when we can! Jab843 (talk)

You're welcome, and I'll continue to do that where possible. —DoRD (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Deadly TV series

I knew Harold Cook (British actor) and Dr. Who (2013 TV series) seemed familiar, but my memory failed me. I'll do better next time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he went quiet for a while, but is back to creating a couple of socks a day again. :( Anyway, the abuse log entries for him, particularly those in #58, are what I use for confirmation these days. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014 IPhonehurricane95 socks

Could we please have a rangeblock enforced on this guy's IP Range (if possible)? Even if we have to resort to using multiple separate blocks to cover his current IP Range, I believe that it would be well worth the effort if it could be done, because he isn't letting up, and because he is also creating new socks every single day. He made more threats of abusing other users here. I believe that his current actions would warrant at least a 1-3 year block on his current IP Range. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, if this guy keeps up his current pattern of naming his socks, his next socks should be: Earth108, Earth109, Earth110, etc. His February socks all have this naming scheme so far, and he will probably continue doing so in order to vandalize articles and to harass User:Earth100. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I do know how to count, and how do you know that blocks haven't been put in place already? Best —DoRD (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Eh... I'm not saying that I don't. There weren't any blocks that last time I checked (February 6), and the Active Rangeblock list was outdated, so I really had no way of knowing. I just wanted to make sure, because I was very concerned I saw that some of the last few rangeblocks expired on the 5th, and when he returned to make more socks. But if he's blocked now, then I guess we're good for the time being. No new activity from him so far, as of early Feb 8. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Levineps SPI

Hi. Does this comment mean that you performed a CU on the Levineps SPI? The case is still marked as "CU requested", and I was confused. Thanks for any enlightenment. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed it. --Rs chen 7754 06:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I checked TranquilityResides as part of another investigation. Levineps has yet to be endorsed by a clerk, so I haven't taken much time to look at the evidence. —DoRD (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet

Hi there, apparently I was flagged as a sock puppet. Please can you investigate and look me up anywhere including tens of mentions of me attending conferences and being a real person? I'm not sure why someone tried to edit my account page, and I did notice my coworkers indeed using the same IP. That's Elizabeth Grey and Josh. As to my account page I did copy some of the template from another user and I'm happy to update, I thought I was following a standard. Happy to arrange a call or Skype or to write a letter to prove I am indeed a real person... Im a Monthy Python fan too! Especially meaning of life. Thank you for your consideration, KrystianSzastok (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC) 12 Feb 2014 Krystian

User:Kimse unblock request

Hi DoRD, the oldest account in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kimse (formerly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stuckos) has just filed an unblock request. I was wondering if you or DeltaQuad could take a look at it since the block was based on CU data. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...I think that the account must have ended up in the list by mistake. Please unblock and move the case back to the previous name. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked and changed all the tags etc. The SPI's new home is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Master Beherit. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HENRY_APPLEGATE

Were you going to check for additional socks/sleepers? --Jakob (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the accounts are so painfully obvious, I usually don't, but I do monitor a couple of abuse filters designed to catch them. —DoRD (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --Jakob (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet either

I see you blocked my account AyreSmith on the instigation of Peregrine981. He claimed there had been no discussion of changes to Open Europe. On the contrary there is a whole discussion including me and others on teh Talk page but Peregrine981 has consistently reversed the edits and abused his position to block those who do not agree with him. This might have something I see on his Talk page - he is employed by the European Comission - which should make him more careful when editing critics of the European Comission? Can I report this abuse of an administrator's position please? AyreSmith1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayresmith1 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Open Europe or the conflicts surrounding the page, but you have now used at least a dozen different accounts to push your views on that and other pages. This account has also been blocked, and if you feel that I have used my tools improperly, feel free to contact the ArbCom Audit subcommittee. To appeal your block, log in with your primary account and use the {{Unblock}} template as outlined here. —DoRD (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Webhostblock unblock request

I wonder if you would be willing to look at an unblock request at User talk:John Mayor ERS. It relates to a range block you placed, which you can see here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JBW, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakandsig for the background on the webhost block. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please look

at this. I blocked them, but it was rather confusing as to what they were doing, although none of it was good. I deleted one page they created and rolled back some edits. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I'm stuck using an iPad for at least a few more hours... —DoRD (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Finally. Bbb23, it is User:Gbgfbgfbgfb, and I just blocked two more. :\ Anyway, I had to replace my keyboard because someone (not to be named) spilled a beverage on it. I broke a fingertip practicing softball on Sunday, so my online activity may be somewhat reduced for the time being. —DoRD (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DoRD. I tagged Irotentbre. I'm a little confused, though, on one point. Is there a relationship between Gbgfbgfbgfb and User:Jude Enemy? I didn't look at the characteristic edits of Gbgfbgfbgfb and their puppets, but there are the obvious letter-jumbling names that are very similar between the two masters. Also, what about this discussion on my talk page?

Sorry about your keyboard. Way back in ancient times, a computer operator spilled a cup of coffee that he had set down on the top of a mainframe computer belonging to a large company. The shit (coffee grounds) hit the (computer) fan and caused $1M in damage, which included downtime of the computer. What was most impressive was the company didn't fire the operator as it was common for people to do this. He was only reprimanded.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! $49 for a new keyboard sounds cheap in comparison. And...YGM. —DoRD (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ginsuloft socks

Hey, could you check the accounts I posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trieddyson? These are User:Ginsuloft, as are the ones you just blocked as socks of User:Cantseeshit. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I should've known...I missed it as well. He has been very busy lately, both here and on other projects. I'll take a look there in a bit, and thanks for the heads up —DoRD (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's several open SPIs floating around that are actually him, with info from some CU actions on loginwiki. --Rs chen 7754 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)...and there are at least two other related cases. It'll be a few hours, but I'll see about tying together what I can. —DoRD (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

More Ginsuloft

User:Mutatedstructure - see edit filter 58, he was using the sandbox to find a way around the filter. Please check for sleepers/IP if you're around. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Charming. I'll add that to my list of things to do. —DoRD (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests

[3] So when an IP block-exempt user edits from an IP address, are any autoblocks on it lifted? Peter James (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, autoblocks will remain in place, but the exempt user will be able to edit through them. —DoRD (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If IP block exemption doesn't extend to other users there's no reason not to grant it. Peter James (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. We only grant IPBE in extraordinary circumstances, and even then, only if it is really needed. In the case above, it is not needed. —DoRD (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

Would you be amenable to training me as a SPI Clerk, I know it's very busy and it needs assistance and I think that I am established enough to be able to help out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank your for your interest in helping out, but unfortunately, I don't really have the time to take on a trainee. —DoRD (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Unblock

Hello DoRD. Regarding this, if you might have guessed how come I, someone without the tools felt the need to have a link to SPI case page of the blocked user, it was actually after this comment of Atama, that I thought it might be useful. After your concern, I have tried modifying it (the sandbox version) to become visible only when a page exists. So thought to let you know that if you think it is useful you may add it. -- SMS ^Talk 23:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahh...yes, your SPI link would have been useful in that situation. I have made a couple of slight modifications to your idea and left it in the sandbox. I know I've solved this problem before, but the answer is escaping me at the moment - your version leaves a space before the closing parenthesis if there isn't a case, and my version leaves no space before the dividing bullet point if there is a case. Anyway, I do think that the idea is a good one, so if you can get the formatting right, please feel free to incorporate it into the live template. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katrina Villegas

Hey, DoRD, I pinged you on this. Perhaps you didn't see it or you don't wish to respond. I just need to know so it doesn't sit there in limbo. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, the two latest suspects are on different ranges than any of the confirmed socks, so I'm not sure what to make of them, but I'll try to take another look later today. FYI, there might be another sockmaster here. —DoRD (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Bbb23, but I did finally get around to running some checks in the case and have posted my results there. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I know how busy you are. Fortunately, I was off-wiki and the wonderful and tireless Callanec took care of all the clerking associated with the new sock farm.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)