User talk:DoRD/Archive 9

Ye Olde Angry Bird

Hey DoRD, can you maybe see if semi-protecting List of Transformers video games is valid? I've asked at RFPP but there is a bit of a backlog there. Since I removed that unsourced content it's probably not the best thing for me to do; blocking the block-evading, proxying IPs is as much as I really should do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. One week. Let me know if that's not enough if you don't want to renew it yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Beebsterix. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

222.239.74.152

DoRD, this is the latest IP to make the same edit to PapaJeckloy's talk page, minutes after you'd blocked the previous one. Said IP also hit another page, and I believe this isn't the first time we've seen IPs from the Mamaluigi2 socks also working in the PapaJeckloy space, leading one to wonder if there's any connection. Anyway, I thought you'd want to block this account too before it does more damage. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And now there's another, 77.234.43.180. It may be that you'll end up needing to semi-protect PapaJeckloy's and Fangirlbot's talk pages, but in the meantime I'm not about to run the risk of a 3RR dealing with these socks (which have reverted you at least once); it's all up to you. Best of luck! You know when they're claiming they're DUCKs, they're going to keep it up... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully, a couple of other admins stepped up to control the damage while I was away from my computer. Also, you don't have to worry about 3RR when dealing with sockpuppetry and vandalism like this. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

SPI

As you previously acted on a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner SPI, are you able to take a look at this latest one? Is actively editing in several short term discussions RMs/AfDs etc. and removing notifications of the SPI. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like he's been busy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dd1234

Daffyduck1234 appears to be back as User talk:R.I.P Joan Rivers Death. BMK (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Tkfkd5460 looks like a possible, but not enough edits to be certain. BMK (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Tkfkd5460 again, it may not be Dd1234, but it's surely someone's sleeper sock: account created in November 2010, first edit in July 2014 (one edit only), and then two edits today (to one of DD's favorite articles). BMK (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A little more research in Tkfkd5460 shows earlier deleted edits and global edits, so they're probably not a sock and not Dd1234, sorry about that. However, both PULLMANtavern109 and Blank24Blank appear to be socks of Dd1234. BMK (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the SPI checkuser of Kaletony

After your checkuser investigation, Kaletony now admits to creating User:Doxelary II, but still effectively denies creating User:Doxelary. Diff. Is it possible to gather more evidence re whether User:Doxelary is a sock, and whether User:Kaletony has other socks? Kaletony has been far from cooperative / straightforward re how many 'alternate' accounts they have. I am a newbie re SPI. Thanks. Memills (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there isn't much more I can say in public. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: latest SPI

I would ask you to read over the SPI a little more closely. I am not fishing - there is an ongoing issue here and suspicious pattern of IP activity to support a POV-pushing and systemic bias campaign. Andrevan@ 02:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment on the SPI case just now, and I'll take a closer look at what you've provided there tomorrow, but there is pretty much no way that those six accounts are operated by the same person. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Unusual

This very new editor appears to be taking an unusual interest in sock puppet-related pages. I reverted some changes he made to templates, more on principle than anything else as my understanding of how templates work is hardly stellar. I thought you might want to take a look at it when you have a moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Unusual, yes, but I think I'll leave them be for now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion about his template changing? Leave that alone, too? My lack of knowledge in that area doesn't help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, right. No, changes to {{Sockpuppet}} should definitely be discussed on the talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User engaging in possible sneaky vandalism.

Hey, just wanted to let you know that User:38734prestonr is changing season-by-season records and playoff results in List of Texas Rangers seasons. He seems to be making mass edits, and none that I've seen thus far have been constructive. I've warned him, but his behavior hasn't changed. Would you mind having a chat with him? I don't really want to go to AIV or ANI just yet. Thanks. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy yesterday, so I didn't have a chance to look at this until well after you took them to AIV. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. He's been blocked now. I'm a little worried, though, that the true extent of his vandalism may not be known, because he was editing long before I became involved. It almost seems like he was just throwing random numbers in there. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there, I put a note on the Mkdw page asking for a check on the user posting on the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa talk page section 22. It looks to me that Stanleytux may also be user TomClement, as I suggest in that section. Mkdw suggested that I contact you. If I am not correct, sorry for the bother. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that would give me reason to use CheckUser here, or to even suspect that the two accounts are related. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamaluigi2, which was marked "close", did you miss the account I added, because it was in the comments section, or decide it wasn't enough evidence? That account hasn't been massively disruptive yet, but I'm certain it's the same user. Begoon ^talk 16:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I did miss that account. I will be updating the SPI shortly with my findings. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - my fault for "hiding" it in the comments where you wouldn't usually expect to see it. Thanks for the quick response. Begoon ^talk 16:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's fine to drop accounts in the comments like that, but CUs and clerks are more likely to notice them if they are enclosed in {{checkuser}} rather than other user templates. You should also feel free to add accounts or IPs to the suspected sockpuppet section. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll remember that. Thanks again. Begoon ^talk 16:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair warning

Don't hate me when you check your email, I *may* have sent a couple missives in your direction.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Safwwefe

Thanks for your swift handling of that SPI on Safwwefe. Any chance you could open an abuse report? This guy's been trolling me for some time. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to a Long-term abuse report or a report to Safwwefe's ISP? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to a abuse report to his ISP. Frankly, I was surprised his ISP hadn't nuked him after his threat to Obama. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is Safwwefe, and I have learned my lesson and how serious my actions were. I have learned what an abuse report consists of. I promise I will never troll HangingCurve ever again. I am begging you, please do not file the abuse report. I have changed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFVYHNTGB (talk • contribs) 12:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked RFVYHNTGB. This is not where to appeal your ban and it's also not a reason to create another account. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, DoRD. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

IP range unblock

Hello, I am the system administrator for a VPN company www.ibvpn.com and we noticed that recently a IP range from a server we use got blocked on wikipedia. The range in question is 107.183.242.0/24 as part of the 107.183.0.0/16 range. We kindly as you to review the block and remove it for us. We understand that anonymous or open proxy are not allowed but this is not the case as our service is not anonymous or open. If you need more details about this feel free to contact me. Best regards. Redstar2k (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You specifically offer a free trail on your website, and yes, your service does anonymize the IP of the person editing. The block is completely valid and will continue to remain. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Check

Can you please check Marinka van Dam for any techincal evidence if this user has previously edited from any other account which was blocked or something? I have some strong doubts that this was a blocked user returning. This was his second edit after creating an account. He used terms like "Wikilinked", "Copyedit" which is pretty uncommon for a brand new user to know. His works at WP:FAC are much doubtful as his comments there appears to be like of someone who has been on Wikipedia for years but he joined here just a week ago. I don't know who is the sockmaster so I want you to check if this user has created and edited from any other account which was blocked or something. Thanks, Jim Carter 05:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This SPI should take care of that. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Neekan

Could you please look at Neekan (talk · contribs)'s edits. Almost all of them are unexplained content deletions and edit wars. According to me, this user is a vandal and obviously not here to contribute. The user was warned many times about the same behaviors but it seems that he won't change. l think an indef block would be useful in order to prevent wikipedia articles. ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see any attempt to engage him by you directly or even anyone else except through templates. He's stopped editing for now. Lets allow the blocks to be preventative and not one sided or punitive. Try engaging him first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

192.159.160.0/19

Hi DoRD,

I just wanted to leave you a message that I removed your comment on the range block to take request an account at ACC. The colocation, Quadranet, only appears to cater towards enterprises. Thus, it might be best to have the user make a request from their home network. If you disagree, let me know and I'm sure we can figure something out. Best, Mike V • Talk 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Unblock_request by User:Vote (X) for Change Comment

You are mentioned there [1]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Indef blocked sockmaster Daffyduck1234...

...has returned as AdultBaby1023. BMK (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daffyduck1234, updated with evidence for this sock. User:AdultBaby1023 also tagged. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I left a comment at the SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi

Dear DoRD,

Reference to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi/Archive is it possible to check these users also.

Suspected Sockpuppet

• Farha Zeba (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Farinakhan74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--Tahir Mahmood (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tahir mq. All of the accounts listed in the sockpuppet investigation are too old for CheckUser to be of any use, so a behavioral investigation will be needed to make any determination. Please open a new SPI case for Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi and include the new suspects. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Daffyduck1234

StarfireAndRobinLoveEachother seems like the latest incarnation. BMK (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Along with Thecindylemon. BMK (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Starfire is Dd1234, but the other one, from a technical standpoint, appears to be someone else. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I hope one day I will become a checkuser . You people really work hard Frost The World (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MeaselMousse

You CU-blocked Meezles earlier today, and MeaselMousse then popped up; similar name, and both edited Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qattus1055/Archive (although the latest edit is absolutely not vandalism). Thoughts? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I suspected, MeaselMousse is the same as FluteOfFwiep and Qattus1055v2. They're on a different range than Meezles and the bulk of Qattus1055's socks, but I agree with Elockid's comments in the archive. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I heard the quacking in the above two posts. Leaving the messages for your reference, since this seems to be an ongoing thing. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I hatted them and faked the headers to avoid messing up the TOC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

<yawn> ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Untrue statement on Sockpuppet investigation / Bridge Boy

Please can you tell me what IS the right way to go about making sure readers are aware that a statement published on Wikipedia, and then archived, is not correct? The ideals for Wikipedia surely are to educate and help editors rather than just delete stuff willy nilly, however I am seeing nothing of this from anyone on here. --WyrmUK 19:27 2, February 2015

It would be better to keep this discussion consolidated where it began rather than scattering it around the project. At any rate, you've been advised by a couple of editors to just move on, and I'll add that since no finding was made against your account, the accusation in itself will have little bearing on any possible future investigations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your advice. I was rather worried that it would have a bearing and be used against me in future. --WyrmUK 23:24 2, February 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.100.30 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hi DoRD, we appear to be experiencing some issues as a result of there being too many edit filters operational at the moment. Special:AbuseFilter/624 was changed back to log only in August last year, could it be switched off or are you planning to use it again? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't monitored that filter in some time, so I don't see any problem with disabling it, but since it was created by DeltaQuad, perhaps he has an opinion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather it remain active unless it's causing a big issue. As far as I know some crosswiki people monitor it too. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Fozzzyyy

Hi DoRD, I wanted to let you know that User:Fozzzyyy, a VAO blocked by you several months ago, was unblocked. (unblocking admin seemed to forget to let you know) Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as the user commits to editing constructively. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Two users with suspiciously similar habits

Hi, Department. I've come across two users, Rewuopuoio (talk · contribs) and Kennyqwew (talk · contribs), with suspiciously similar habits. Are there any socks who are known to visit apparently-random articles and: (i) add {{italictitle}} when inappropriate, as with this edit by Rewuopuoio and this edit by Kennyqwew; (ii) remove all red links, as with Rewuopuoio and Kennyqwew; (iii) add brief redundant sentences about taxonomy, as with Rewuopuoio and Kennyqwew; (iv) increase the subheading level without good reason, as with Rewuopuoio and Kennyqwew? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. I intended to look at this yesterday, but to be honest, I got busy elsewhere and simply forgot. Anyway, I have found - and am still finding - dozens of related accounts. If you're interested, take a look at my blocking log. Off the top of my head, I don't know who to link them all to, but I'll be asking another CU who blocked another large group of related socks for some assistance. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that Kennyqwew (talk · contribs) has been marked as a sock of MehulWB (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is massive related socking going on, and another couple of CUs are also keeping an eye on it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Thibbs#WP:OUTING Question

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Thibbs#WP:OUTING Question. Thanks. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:C.Fred is abusing his editoral powers on Wikipedia to advance his own personal point of view.. Thank you. Sam Walton (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

See here. I'll be signing off soon if you want to keep an eye on it. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully that'll slow them down for a bit. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Kbabej is back as a new sock

SPI here [2]. Since you handled the last one, thought you might be interested in taking a look. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I commented there. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect

Hi, DoRD. I do respect you very much, so please do not be offended. I am trying to understand the SPI procedures. The page WP:SPI/PROC says that "archiving cases is restricted to clerks and clerk trainees", yet you archived WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect ([3]), although you are not a clerk. Also, the same page (WP:SPI/PROC) says that "a clerk should review the case before archiving" and "as a rule of thumb, try to keep yourself from changing two case statuses in a row". Yet, you closed the case and archived it in a single edit [4] without waiting for a clerk to review. Did you make a mistake or are those procedures obsolete? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) CUs are generally considered as "clerks+1" (especially for CUs who are former SPI clerks, like DoRD, and maybe soon Mike V and Bbb23), and sometimes do perform clerk actions (such as blocktagging socks, moving/merging cases, archiving cases). They're also granted considerable leeway when it comes to performing non-standard actions in the processing of cases when they deem it necessary. In any case, even clerks can sometimes perform such actions per the spirit of WP:IAR -- the rules and procedures exist to provide order and structure to SPI work, but not to get in the way of realistically preferable solutions; rules should not be relied upon blindly, and careful judgement must always be exercised. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) No offense taken, and I'm glad to answer your questions.

CUs active at SPI are still considered to be clerks, or at least de facto clerks, and I was a clerk for quite a while before getting the CU bit. As for the case at hand, I took action because 1) the accusations had been withdrawn by the filer, so it didn't really need any further review, and 2) (with a bit of IAR in mind) the case had little merit anyway, and it didn't seem right to have that hanging there over Collect's head.

If there's anything else I can answer for you, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this clarification. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please Advise

I filed a edit warring report not related to a 3 revert rule, due mostly to something that you had once explained to me.

"FYI: WP:EW does not specify a fixed number of edits which constitute an edit war. You are confusing an edit war with the three revert rule, which is a line that should not be crossed." —DoRD (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AndyTheGrump_reported_by_User:Mormography_.28Result:_Filer_warned.29

Now it appears I have in essence been banned from editing at the page for doing the right thing, reporting edit warring behavior. I have attempt to discuss with the admin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23#How_Do_I_appeal_Your_Ban_Of_Me_At_Gordon_B._Hinkcley Mormography (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

First, please see WP:ADMINSHOP. I agree with the warnings given to you by Bbb23 and suggest that you heed them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting one

at User talk:Smurfmeister - he/she's autoblocked because their IP was used by Zee zack. Peridon (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I looked and found that the IP in question is used by a number of apparently unrelated editors. I could be wrong, of course, but I didn't see any obvious behavioral connections between the two. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's odd with that because the editing of ZZ looks American based, as is FMc (an American company even), but SM seems very into British soaps, and has been around here a lot, which the others haven't been. No duck there. The 'unrelated' FMc account definitely posted a very duck like post for their second only post with over five years 'inactive' - and FMc is on eLance. ZZ looks to be trying to boost the profile of those people for his 'interviews'. I could be totally wrong, but I think there's something fishy going on... Peridon (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

FMc blocked too. Wait and see time now... Peridon (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hiding revisions

I noticed you deleted my recent edit and 2 of Ldecalmer's edits, but could you please delete the edit summaries from Ldecalmers deleted edits too? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I'm not sure how I missed ticking those boxes - probably because I need another cup of coffee - but I've taken care of it now. Thanks again ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

SPIKE SPIKE BAD and Territory war 3 pwner

Hi, I blocked User:SPIKE SPIKE BAD after this WP:ANI thread for his disruption, after coming back from his "retirement". An editor has now approached me on my talk page, suggesting that User:Territory war 3 pwner should also be blocked as you identified them as being the same at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPIKE SPIKE BAD/Archive. However while SPIKE SPIKE BAD returned to editing disruptively, Territory war 3 pwner has not made any edits and was not blocked after the SPI report, so I wanted to get your advice on whether Territory war 3 pwner should now be blocked as a sockpuppet? Davewild (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner - I got busy with an involved SPI and simply forgot about this. Anyway, here was my reasoning at the time, and pretty much my current thoughts on the matter: SPIKE "retired" about a minute before Tw3p's first edit. SPIKE wasn't blocked at the time, so there was no block evasion, per se, and since they apparently have some WP:CIR issues, I'm not keen on blocking Tw3p unless they return to SPIKE's disruptive behavior.

On second thought, I decided to have a look and found that they created another account less than a week ago, Ahohmygod (talk · contribs), so I have gone ahead and blocked the lot of them. Thanks for bringing this to me. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Autoblock question

When I block a named account and check the Autoblock box, that prevents other users from editing if they are using the same IP address as the blocked account. If I block an IP (there is no Autoblock box), does that prevent a named account from editing using that IP address? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Only if you select the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. That box is not checked by default, so I'd have to manually check it. If I did, would it show in the block log as one of the attributes of the block (I assume yes but want to be sure)? --Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(tps) Yes. Using the default settings, the block appears in the log as "Bbb23 blocked 12.34.56.789 (anon. only, account creation blocked)", whereas ticking that box produces ""Bbb23 blocked 12.34.56.789 (account creation blocked)". Here's an example of a hard block from my log. We should use them sparsely, but they have their occasional uses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, most of my hardblocks have been based on CU results where I know that I need to prevent logged-in editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but I gotta say that's pretty silly, not the hard block, but the log. The only difference is whether it says "anon. only", meaning you have to infer what happened from the omission of that phrase. Wouldn't it be easier to have explicit language as one of the block's attributes? It may seem obvious to those who already know how it works, but to literal fellows like me who like everything spelled out, it's not. And now it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry case stuck

No edits by check users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Undertrialryryr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeadlystockCosmicEmperor (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a complex case, and I can't speak for any other CU, but I haven't had the uninterrupted time available to work on it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pabdelma / SweetPoet345 redux

Re this recently archived ANI thread, the user NewbornCircle, created yesterday, professes in this Help Desk thread to be Pabdelma reincarnated. I don't think they get it. I haven't looked at all of their edits under this new username, but what I have seen shows continued lack of competence, including this edit and this new article. (Reply here is fine, I'm watching.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was short on time earlier, so I asked another admin to look into the situation. Now that I've had some time, I left them some advice. On one hand, I don't want to see the project disrupted with the kinds of edits they've been making. On the other hand, I don't want to come down too hard on an impressionable young person. <sigh> This is always a tough balancing act, I'd say.

Anyway, I'll try to keep an eye on them, and I hope that they figure things out quickly, but if not, I'll give them enough time off to gain some maturity. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Since you indeffed SweetPoet345 as an obvious sock, I thought you might want to do the same with NewbornCircle. I gather blocking the first obvious sock is one thing but blocking the second is coming down too hard. Wikipedia continues to regularly baffle me (which speaks to my own competence, I guess). Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just in a charitable mood after a good meal and a glass of wine. Also, the first sock was being extra obnoxious. Anyway, I expect to keep them on a short leash. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I read every thing you wrote about Pabdelma/SweetPoet345 redux and all of that made me upset. Yes I'm a young user that's why I'm really bad at making articles and that's how all my articles keep on getting deleted.NewbornCircle (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin article problems

Thank you for your sock investigations around User:Kraainem who had been editing the Bitcoin article. A brand new editor, User:TorquilMacLeod, has now appeared on Talk:Bitcoin with a vaguely similar style of outburst. If you have the time, I was wondering if some investigation was in order. Bondegezou (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That's them, and I blocked another unused account as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Block questioned

Hi. I saw this indefinite block. Why grant a block at the request of an editor who has only 21 edits to her credit (User:Ladysif) with fairly clear POV issues of her own, as for instance on this talk page ? She defines as vandalism any edit she disagrees with. Not that Cantucove's edits were right; I'd have reverted with an explanation-- merely that education rather than a permanent block, would seem to me the better recourse.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That edit warring report (I assume that that's what you're referring to) played no part in my decision to block the account. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I've seen the report. Rather, my block was based on checkuser evidence linking the account to long-term sockpuppetry and other abusive behavior. Just for clarity, though, I'll leave a note in the edit warring report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I just saw the sockpuppet notice on the account. *sigh*. Sometimes my tendency to assume good faith may shade over into naïveté.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I always (or nearly always) try to AGF, but when I see this guy, all bets are off. Cheers. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Er, I came here to ask something similar: why was this guy blocked? Aren't sock investigations usually public? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Usually, yes, but checkuser is used to investigate things not related to sockpuppetry, and when we come across someone evading a block, we often don't file a report. In this case, I was processing some account creation requests and found this account to be evading blocks on several previous accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ooooh, that's interesting, thanks. To be honest I just wanted to be nosy and see who the sockpuppeteer is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple

I know check users are under lots of pressure , but if you have time please check whether this ip is a sock of some Known vandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.30.74.98 --Cosmic Emperor (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

CU is ... less than useful in that part of the world, and even if I did link it to an account, I couldn't tell you who it is. Sorry. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:103.9.113.82&oldid=652090964

I never read a talk page like that above--Cosmic Emperor (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Chealer's MO is to ask questions ad nauseam. He will never "hear it". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I gathered as much, and since I think I've satisfied WP:ADMINACCT, I'm done there. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

The subject says it all, really appreciate you stepping in. I sorta understand why my accuser is so vindictive since he somehow blames me - or rather his war against my alleged army of scary socks - for getting himself blocked, but "novelty" of being the one to be targeted by his wild/random accusations is starting to wear off. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, sorry to bother you again. OccultZone removed your "collapse" on the SPI, which means it also removes your attached comment that you felt the evidence he had presented was circumstantial at best. Is that actually allowed? He's effectively removing points thats being brought up by neutral uninvolved parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The case has now been closed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I check if its possible to at least reveal that the IP is not me? Else OccultZone will never get off my tail since your statement is ambiguous to leave him just that faint hope that the IP could possibly be me. I just want to get this over and done with. As you can see from the edit below, it looks like I have to keep looking over my back. Cos he wasn't even convinced with the explicit statement you made that you did not you find relation between me and the other 2 named editors. Or if its against wikipolicy to even reveal that, can I at least use you as referral in the future in case he continues to bug me? Zhanzhao (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I will not be publicly divulging anything further about the IP at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I see that you've tried again to pacify him, but you can see that I better stock up for round 2. Maybe he can finally "get me" at ANI. lol. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Any ideas?

Tryandfindoutwhoiam (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know - yet - but I'm not putting up with that nonsense, so they're now blocked. They made a similar edit while logged out, as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI closure

First we forgave him by taking his words that he has a brother, when he wasn't, he was himself abusing that account.

Now we are leaving this case aside even after having overwhelming evidence of long term WP:ILLEGIT abuse. Since you have discarded the SPI, why he have to abuse an IP? He can just abuse Resaltador further, that you have already vindicated. For a account with 132 edits, how many more similarities you would expect?

Sorry but I am not getting what is happening, are we inclined to favor a self admitted sock abuser who was blocked previously for evading his block? Have you even read what he has written on the SPI? He is clearly making personal attacks on me. I would've request a temporary block for that but we have more reasons to block him as an obvious sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The two accounts used previously were not the focus of this case. And, when I said that the three accounts were  Unrelated, I meant that they were unrelated. I saw no evidence of the use of a VPN, open proxy, or other IP masking technique that would allow for the three accounts to be under the control of one person. Since the evidence you presented was a mass of weak, circumstantial evidence - something I commented on in the SPI, but you removed - I saw no other option than to close it. If you follow the guidelines I outlined in my closing statement, perhaps a case can go forward. As for personal attacks, if you care to point them out, I will take appropriate action. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we find such amount of circumstantial evidence between any other accounts other than those that were mentioned in the SPI? We cannot, who considers 'talk' as a proper noun or writes talk in uppercase or make 3 words userpages? But thanks for the response and no offense to you. You have completed your investigation and I would consider addressing this issue(not your actions) to ANI. Is that fine? Probably your closing of SPI can lead us to some better solution. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Do whatever you think you need to, but as the notice above points out, I probably won't have much to say for the next several days. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oi vey. From the SPI notes, you said, but I do know who was editing from 72.196.235.154, and if I see it being used to violate policy again, the account behind it is going to be blocked. Well, the IP has been blocked for edit warring by Kuru. Have fun with this one. I'm going to block OccultZone for 3RR. This is a mess that never ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Just wonderful, isn't it? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Well said DoRD. I believe that TCKTKtool had to potential to abuse multiple IPs and he might have mistakenly used that IP(72...) when he was switching. We know that no one is perfect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jets100's sockpuppets

Hello, DoRD. Would you be interested to help at User talk:Bbb23#Jets100's sockpuppets? I'm pretty sure its a DUCK... Sundostund (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I commented at the SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Daffyduck1234?

Hi. It's been quite a while since I've had to ask, but could you please check User:Enigdifang to see if it's the return of Daffyduck1234? The user edits the same articles (e.g. Gus Wickie, Bonnie Poe), uploads poor images that are clearly not his own (out of focus shots taken with a cell phone of probably copyrighted images), and creates unsourced or poorly sourced articles about non-notable musicians which are almost immediately tagged for deletion -- these are all Dd1234 hallmarks. BMK (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Results posted in the SPI. There are some other possible accounts, but it's hard to pick them out for certain. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. They'll eventually show themselves up, as they consistently edit the same group of articles. BMK (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64

Hi DoRD, thanks for the CU. My comment was relying on what Callan said in the archives about proxies, etc. Should I have tried to run the CU myself? Was it "difficult"? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't difficult at all in this case. First, though, you will want to install the CU log helper script* if you haven't already and then look at the logs for the account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

* importScript('User:Amalthea/culoghelper.js'); (<-- ping Mike V as well)

Okay, thanks, I've imported it, but I'm not sure how to use it. As far as I can tell, the only documentation Amalthea has is a few comments at the beginning of the script. If I look at the log, is the script automatically invoked?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all it really does is turn the timestamps into clickable links, but that saves a lot of copy/pasting that is otherwise required to tie checks together. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, I see that. But I have multiple questions about the log and yet I'm not sure what I can talk about on your Talk page and what I should address privately. Better to e-mail you?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you're not on IRC, email is better than here - we can't really discuss useful examples in public. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Daffyduck1234 again?

Would you mind checking out a user for me? Only one obvious overlap with Dd1234 (June Foray) so far that I am aware of, but something about the user name makes me think it might be the same person: User:Beyondmyken61.

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the name looks a bit...suspicious. ;) Blocked as a confirmed sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. BMK (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick question

Συντάκτης has recently been {{checkuserblock-account}}'d. What sock master/user does he belong to (for tagging)? Thanks, Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No tags are needed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zeke Essiestudy: @DoRD: Umm I am also quite confused. You CU blocked him, with no SPI, and in my personal opinion no obvious behavioral evidence, they acted like any other new user I have met. Could you elaborate, or should I take this to a noticeboard of some kind... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: This is partially why I'm asking him for the sock master. There's something fishy about that out-of-nowhere block... Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zeke Essiestudy: And an even more fishy answer he gave you... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: I am going to ask Συντάκτης if he's indeed abusing multiple accounts or not, because there's something about that block notice gnawing at me. Of course, he could just say 'no' either way, but how come the sockmaster isn't even being named? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been where you are at right now. I use to challenge blocks, especially WP:DUCK ones. And I've simply been told that CUs have information that is not available to other editors that helps them come to these conclusions. You can accept that as an adequate explanation or not but I doubt any CU will say more than this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I found evidence of sockpuppetry and block evasion, but I'm sorry, the Privacy policy prevents me from discussing the details with non-CheckUsers. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And...not even a sock master is being allowed to be named? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That is my understanding, DoRD. I've been told this before. I think I understand the extreme need for discretion as long as CUs understand how unsatisfying this answer is for people who've gotten to know those editors who've been blocked, without any explanation. I've come to accept, regretfully, this is just how Wikipedia operates. No use tilting at windmills. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please understand that the reason I can't divulge much is that I am trying to protect the user's privacy. I will say, however, that the user was already blocked when they created the current account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

But why is it that CU's normally will disclose the sock master and tag the sock, as is explicitly instructed in WP:SPI instructions. Reading the privacu policy, the only reason for you to withhold information is if he is coming from a blocked IP. You also gave no reason why you were checking this account in the first place, CU's are required to have good rationale before checking an accounts IP's. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well...alright then. Generally though, you used the sock puppet template on Συντάκτης's talk page, so he SHOULD be tagged with his master. But if that's what you wish to do. I DO, however, want to help the user... Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• If identifying the sock master would reveal private information about the user, and/or if the connection between the accounts is only apparent via CheckUser, then DoRD is quite right not to reveal that information. The blocked user can still appeal the block, and other people watching do not have any right to be informed of anything that might violate the user's privacy. Squinge (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Checkusers are essentially the NSA of Wikipedia. They're given extremely broad jurisdiction to gather others' personal information, and you can't ask them anything because it's all "classified"/"private." Get too outspoken against them and you can be arrested/blocked. If they are held accountable to anyone at all, that procedure too is closed to the public. You're advised to just take their word for it and not ask too many questions, because, quite frankly, they're better than you, and if you knew what they knew...

Sorry, DoRD, nothing personal against you. I think you're one of the better ones in terms of being frank and respectful to all involved. I just don't care for the way the CU system I set up. 2605:A000:1117:809A:FC45:413:1239:BCC1 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) yes, I use this template ツ I literally stumbled on this conversation because I do have your talk page watched. (no idea why now). I actually trust this for a mysterious reason. I beleve this non-disclosure is done out of kindness. (mine is not to question why...mine is to prowl and edit another day). Fylbecatulous talk 00:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Malusia22

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22, why did you block Riskayore4,95, but not the other two confirmed socks? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard practice is for CUs to leave the blocking to someone else, but in this case, I went ahead and blocked one to activate the autoblock to prevent any further account creation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppets?

Hi, are sockpuppet investigations a thing of the past, or are they still being conducted? Thanks!Devasthali2 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Devasthali2: alive and well. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it is, Mlpearc. This wiseguy seems to be returning from an extended break. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking when I responded, this is prolly a sockmaster "testing the waters" Mlpearc (open channel) 23:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Range block

Would you like to discuss about the possibility of a range block? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015

Please try to put {{pp-semi|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}} because this page is currently semi-protected if you can, thank you! Ãwpeditccí (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Ãwpeditccí (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ãwpeditccí: Adding protection templates isn't a requirement, and this is especially true outside of the article namespace, and even more so in the user namespace. Thus, it's entirely up to DoRD to decide whether they want to have the protection template there or not. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Συντάκτης and Ãwpeditccí: If you wish to be able to edit again, please follow the instructions on user talk:Συντάκτης. 13:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What a lot!

Thanks.  —SMALLJIM  12:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you saw that. Good, I was about to drop you a note about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the assist. Appreciate it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Cat Creek, Montana

What can be done to watch/protect this article from an ongoing barrage of trolls? BTY, thanks for your prompt assistance. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The protection on the page expired a few days ago, so I went ahead and reinstated it long term. I don't like leaving pages in a full protected state, but unfortunately, this vandal leaves us with little choice in the matter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. His vandalism is easily undone and there are several filters to catch him. Leaving a page in full protection long-term ensures that relevant info that is not currently there will almost certainly not be added, because (from what I've observed) most admins little to no *actual* editing. By full-protecting a page long-term, you're letting the vandals win and turning (a small part of) Wikipedia into a fascist police state. 166.170.26.44 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fat Rat of Chepstow

Hi, I see on my watchlist that you have blocked User:The Fat Rat of Chepstow with an expiry time of indefinite under a checkuserblock; I had some spidey sense early suspicions about this user and a couple of disagreements with them about their editing, so I'd be interested to know who the sockmaster was in this case. Keri (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Once I reach a conclusion, I will probably post my results in a case, but unfortunately, I won't have much time to work on it until after the weekend is over. What I can say now is that they were using multiple accounts in a good hand-bad hand manner. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably time to revoke TP access too. Harry Let us have speaks 18:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for the heads up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Back with sock Promised Editor (talk · contribs). Keri (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Promised Editor (talk · contribs), YY1 FF2 (talk · contribs), Yadaeciwtxesevahi (talk · contribs), Horris Bailey (talk · contribs), Comical Mike (talk · contribs) and Andrew Cabbage (talk · contribs) are now blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:GURJYWURJY

Could you revoke TPA for this editor you blocked, due to this and this? Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What a silly person.  Done, with note to self to revoke talk page immediately for any future accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ZORDANLIGHTER or Someone Else

Sorry for mentioning the same subject . I am getting tired of this . Can you put all of them together in that page where you mentioned These two, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master. --CosmicEmperor (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC).

It will take some time - I am away from my computer for a while. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Two more suspects: User:AHLM13 and User:115ash. Almost a tag team, very identical existence. Latched on to same people and subjects. Can be from a different master. Please, advise. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is credible evidence that either or both of them are socking, the matter will need to be raised in a separate SPI case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Me a Pakistani sockpuppet! What have you said? "Almost a tag team, very identical existence. Latched on to same people and subjects. Can be from a different master." Why do you suspect me? Just for having disagreed and MOVED this?. Or for the reason that my username sounds like his one? Probably you have gone confused. --115ash^→(☏) 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pure censorship

[5] Tony (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it is regrettable, and I sincerely hope that he will return to the project after taking a break. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No, your action in removing my comment and those of others is pure censorship. I'm very annoyed with him, having just found out about this; as I said, I don't disagree with the indeffing. But I want my view to be recorded—it is very relevant to the indeff. Tony (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Then next time don't post your comments in an archive? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I apologize if you took it that way, but it is simply protocol, not censorship. We don't allow archived cases to be edited, if for no other reason than because comments left there, particularly with cases like this that are unlikely to be active again, will probably not be seen by anyone other than the clerk or CU who archived it. It would also set bad precedent in giving editors the impression that they are free to continue commenting on cases that have been resolved. Anyway, you are welcome to air your views here, on Dick's talk, or elsewhere, just not in the archived case. Thank you ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tony1, the removal of your and others' comments is partly my fault. I didn't mean any harm. As you can see in that linked discussion, I understand about wanting to have your view recorded. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, so it simply won't be recorded. That's censorship. Tony (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tony1, I thought about suggesting that you reply at the archive's talk page, which is what you did here, since there is a talk page for the archive, but I'm not sure about it. It's an okay solution, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, SPI is censored and subject to protocol. Editors are not free to opine their thoughts and make any general comments that they wish in SPI cases; to be on topic, you must be presenting evidence or assisting with the actual case. Anything else is most unwelcome and subject to removal. It isn't the correct forum to state displeasure concerning the case or its outcome, that is what talk pages are for. For general problems with SPI, comments may be directed to the project talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So it would have been better for someone to simply move the comments to the talkpage in the first place, rather than just expunging them and upsetting people. Tony (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)