User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 11

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


A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Congratulations for successfully going through RfA! You definitely deserve this for the SPI work and I imagine that it won't be long until you get the admin barnstar as well! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: thanks a lot! Vanjagenije (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI question

I'm rusty on SPI. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2015‎‎ has been vandalized repeatedly over the last few weeks, by a different new IP or new user account every time. These pages rarely get edited by anyone, but when they do, it screws up the "archive" link on each day's TFA (the first item on the Main Page). It generally happens while I'm asleep, and the vandalism sits there for a while. Would it be worthwhile opening an SPI on this person? They generally go on to vandalize other WP pages. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I get that I could fix the problem by semi-protecting the page (unless they learn to be patient) ... but since this page is the chosen stomping ground of this prolific vandal, leaving the page unprotected might help with catching each of their incarnations, and generating some data on the IP(s). - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the semi-protection. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I semi-protected the page. But, what evidence do we have that those four edits were made by the same person? During this month, that page is linked directly from the main page that is visited by thousands of people each hour. And four of them vandalized the page in the timespan of one week. I see no evidence that those are sockpuppets. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're the expert here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blank/delete

The user documentation on blank/delete process is not very clear so sorry for using these tools incorrectly. I don't want to WP:VANISH, I just posted my personal information a while ago on the user page and possibly on user talk page. I have deleted it since, but it obviously stays in the edits history and that's what I'm trying to purge. Whatever works, would be fine for me. Kravietz (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kravietz: If you tell me exact edits of yours (using WP:diffs) that are problematic, I might be able to delete only them. Deleting the whole talk page is not allowed (and not needed) because it also contains edits by other users. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you — that's exactly what I'm after. From user page: [1][2][3] I have reviewed all edits from the user talk page but they seem to be ok (i.e. don't need to delete any of them). Kravietz (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Anyway, deletion of the user page is allowed, so you could request the speedy deletion. Only user talk page might not be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Kravietz (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving Kang Jin-a

Thanks for saving the page from deletion.Jjaey (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

Hi Vanjagenije, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations on the positive result and for your new place on WP:RFX100. As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 18:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen an RfA referred to as "a pleasant experience" by anyone in recent memory. Most of the time, it's pretty grueling. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations, V. Can I get some baklava, too, please? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it looks like I'll have less to do at SPI now. I might actually have to roll up my sleeves and review some cases. Mkdwtalk 22:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is completely unoriginal, but congratulations! You'll do great! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

You deleted my page as I was editing it, with that you caused me to loose all my resources and bibliography. I have classes and was unable to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfort8 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Danfort8: Your article was nominated for deletion two hours before I deleted it. You had a plenty of time to edit it, which you didn't do. As I already told you on your talk page, you are free to write the article again in the WP:Draft namespace. If you use draft, you can work on the article as long as you want and it would not be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Edit

I can't tell for sure but the most recent revision of Jonathan M. Katz seemed a bit suspicious to me. However, I am not confident in saying that it's vandalism, so I would like to hand this off to you since you're an administrator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CLCStudent (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent: Yes, it was pure vandalism. I reverted it. Thanks for reporting. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I would appreciate it if you could comment here. Counsel2 (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed re your nomination for deletion

Hi,

In 2014 you  nominated 3 pages which I started for deletion. These redirects which were deleted as a result of your nomination, were used to link to terminology that is used extensively in the United States healthcare reform articles.

Can you please advise me how to have these deletions oveturned. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: Two redirects created by you were deleted last December after a deletion discussion (see: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_4#Gold_plan). I seams to me that those editors who participated in the discussion were aware of the usage of those terms in the healthcare act. But, they still took opinion that such redirects are not needed. The only way to get them back is to request a Wikipedia:Deletion review. But, if you do that, you would be expected to provide some new evidence that was not known at the time of the discussion, or to show how the discussion was closed contrary to the established policies. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

belated congratulations

I'm late, but congratulations on your successful RFA!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – eight long, sordid, should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.)
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
  5. Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


Katietalk 04:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.
@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks a lot. I just now realized that our two user accounts were registered only few days apart. Interesting. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know - AfD culture

Just to let you know your edits may/have been discussed at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Newark Airport Station

Thanks for your move of the Newark Liberty International Airport Station article. Unfortunately the talk:page does not correspond. It would require Talk:Newark Liberty International Airport station being moved to to the correct namespace. I hope you can do that. Much appreciated. Djflem (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sock

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner Don't know why I didn't spot him in the Japan diacritics RM, must be getting slow. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the examples you gave Talk:Marin Čilić and Talk:Agnieszka Radwańska (thanks by the way) ‎now have RM proposals... In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Arbol Navidad 03 Merry Christmas -- A Good Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.9.17.203 (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Wlglunight93 and AndresHerutJaim

As far as I can see Elockid is only talking about moving the case of Delores Moghadam to AndresHerutJaim. I don't think he said that Andres and Wlglunight93 are the same. It seems highly implausible to me, but I could be wrong. I did report two of Wlglunight93's socks, and they definitely seemed different from Andres to me. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the entire case. Previously  Confirmed as Wlglunight were ISavedPvtRyan and Averysoda. However based on CU data, the real sockmaster for these accounts is AHJ. For me anyways, the behavior between Averysoda is pretty much in line with AHJ. Elockid Message me 12:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Elockid: Thanks, that clears up matters a lot. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsindian: Then, everything is OK? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient grains

Hi, Ancient grains is finally on main page. I just wanted to thank you because without your afd it would have gone unnoticed. I am more happy because its my first DYK with image. You withdrawn your afd after my request, so thanks for that. --Human3015TALK  09:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, you're an administrator?

When I last looked at SPI, you were just a SPI clerk. I must have blinked and missed it. Congratulations! (I'm sorry if this is late...) Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeke Essiestudy: Thank you very much. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request by Againstdisinformation

I can't tell his response to your offer [4] was encouraging. Againstdisinformation tells: "As concerns wp:dramaboards [linked by you to WP:ANI], I don't see what you are alluding to. Unless you are referring to the case brought against me on ANI by user Reaganomics, which he lost, and that almost boomeranged." He "forget" about ANI discussion he recently started [5]. This discussion was also mentioned on the top of his talk page by another contributor. Denying obvious in response to unblock offer is a bad sign. Can anyone trust that guy? My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Yes, that is case I had in my mind. But, remember, WP:Unblocks are cheap. If he continues with any kind of disruption, we can always block him again. That is much easier and consumes less time than to argue more about this. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No question, he would be a wonderful contributor if he remains active and can follow all your unblocking conditions. I just do not think he will [6] based on their comments so far. Let's wait and see. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to have a look at your talk page. Since we have interacted recently, I wanted to know you a little more. I see that even here MVBW has posted against me even though he should have refrained, being heavily involved in the case. I would like to provide evidence that his accusations are unfounded, but I will not do it without your approval. So, please ping me to let me know. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije, I need your help. ScrapIronIV left the following abusive comment on Talk:Human rights in the United States: "I know you and your new buddy have become very close since your mutual backscratching sessions on his talk page, but you can take your POV pushing elsewhere." Scr★pIronIV 18:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC). He is referring to SageRad and me. Since my unblock conditions do not allow me to answer to abuse, I let you be the judge whether this is acceptable language or not. If you don't want me to bother you with such matters again, just let me know. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect me to do exactly? I don't understand. Why don't you just ignore him? That would be the best thing to do even without my conditions. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije. Since I am not allowed to do it myself, I would appreciate you to tell him that such language is unacceptable. His comment was directed at RadSage, not at me directly. Also, in my opinion , you should have told My very best wishes that, due to his heavy involvement, it was improper for him to open a section on your talk page, while you were reviewing my case, in order to advocate keeping my block. It is akin to a party to a trial having dinner with the judge to convince him of the guilt of the opposing side. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Γνῶθι σεαυτόν. I thinks some your recent edits violate your unblocking conditions. For example,

  1. that your comment addressed to Toddy1: "... Do you therefore think that BMK and Drmies, who apparently shared my lunacy, should have also been indefinitely blocked?... Why did your friends My very best wishes, who constantly claims to be extremely busy, and Iryna Harpy, with whom you co-edited against me on such an uncontroversial matter as the spelling of Edme-Antoine Durand, spend so much time and effort to keep me blocked?" and
  2. that your comment addressed to Masebrock: "this article is monitored by a small group of editors who will oppose the slightest change to its wording. ... It's a shame".

I think this is all bad faith assumptions, to say the least. However, this is obviously on discretion of the unblocking administrator. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please could review an accusation that he/she is in violation of the unblock conditions that you placed on him/her

You were the person who unblocked Againstdisinformation. This was a kind deed. An editor has accused former-Againstdisinformation of violating his/her unblock conditions at User talk:Toddy1#Victoria Nuland and my block.

  • If former-Againstdisinformation has violated his/her unblock conditions, please reblock. (If a block is merited - and I cannot judge this - indefinite seems harsh - please be merciful and time-limit it to 29th October.)
  • If former-Againstdisinformation has not violated his/her unblock conditions, then a clear statement from you would clear the air.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Toddy1: I really don't have time to be a referee in your childish arguments. If he is abusive to you, ask him to stop commenting on your talk page. That should be enough. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A congratulation and a question

Back in spring when you were handling the Tirgil34 investigations i really wondered why a great Wikipedian like you hadn't been made an administrator yet. Coming back from a wikibreak i see that you've finally become an administrator. Congratulations! In case you didn't notice my ping, i strongly suspect that Tirgil34 is the sockmaster behind Egaplaicesp. On a side note, was the behavioural evidence in the 24 May case ever evaluated by an administrator before it was closed due to the closure of the later 26 June investigation? Krakkos (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I noticed that case, but I don't see it as urgent, so I'l review it when I find some time. As about the May case, you should ask the one who closed the investigation, but I suppose behavior was analysed. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kazandibi

Congratulations
For passing your RfA!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ran for RFA while I was on a WikiBreak. Please consider this a very belated Support from a fellow SPI clerk. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: Thanks. You know, I couldn't wait for you to come back for the RfA. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous association of IP with Janagewen/We Talk About * socks

Please note the comment I added to the most recent (at the moment) archived case: here. Jeh (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that IP is not active, so no measures were taken anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rear2189

Check user tools are not wrong, but it's upto the check user not to take any hasty decision.

I have found out who this Rear2189 is, and I am presenting my evidence:

This Moscow IP 5.228.177.137 was trolling on my talk page with fake unblock requests 1, 2 , due to which my talk page was protected. Later on when I found User:Rear2189 blocked as my confirmed sock and User:Gta1077 as my suspected sock, I was surprised. I am not a check user but I know which accounts I create.

Today out of curiosity I was checking whether this Moscow IP is blocked or not. The Ip is not only blocked, but the talk page unblock requests showed that from this IP Rear2189 account was created. Check the bottom posts User talk:5.228.177.137. As this is the same Ip which made nonsense unblock request on my behalf, Guerillo came to the conclusion that I created that account. Favonian was active in the last unblock request. After that he blocked User:Gta1077 as my sock.

I am exposing my IP , so that you will know who is impersonating me. However every Ip from this range won't be me. DoRD is back as Check User. He won't make any mistakes. 223.176.13.240 (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unblock User Account!

Dr. Huasheng, this user account is innocent! No matter who this user is, we expect to unblock this user account! Please provide any help! Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.149.90 (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sock puppet investigations

I am not a sock puppet, user Kailash has the habit of tagging every other editor he encounters as a sock puppet of padmalakshmisx. On the other hand, sock puppet allegations have to be made on some one who is into damaging wikipedia articles, but I am actually contributing to wikipedia constructively. Kindly check my edit history, and see what exactly I did. Pravbv (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is lying. As per WP:DUCK, he acts like Padma, edits like Padma and behaves like Padma. All these show that he is indeed Padma. And I don't tag every editor do SPI like he says. I only tag those who edit disruptively like him. Kailash29792 (talk)
Whatever you two have to say, say it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx, the investigation is still open. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2015

Statistically, this is probably the same vandal as we had last month. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. That paged is linked directly from the main page and it is statistically expected to draw several vandals. I see no similarity between them. I protected the page. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if it happens next month, I'll follow your lead and semiprotect the page, unless you think INVOLVED is an issue here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Wait, really? I almost got blocked a year ago for removing a warning from my talk page? I was told you could not unless it said you can remove it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsenalFan700: Yes, really. Try reading WP:REMOVED. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, just read the section regarding the user page and talk page... you are correct. Don't know what happened last year but whatever, sorry about my behavior on his page. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfarm is apparently a class project

Hi, Vanjagenije,
Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IceTeaKing, could you please take a look at User talk:Limelightangel#Request to be unblocked? I don't know whether what the instructor says agrees with what you found in the investigation but since Kevin Gorman is ready to unblock the accounts, I thought a checkuser should be aware of the circumstance since the SPI is closed and ready to archive. Right now, you seem to be more active on Wikipedia than Mike V so I'm coming to you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yes, the CheckUser found them to be "likely" connected, which is consistent with what they say. I support unblocking them, but they have to make their course the right way. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there are a lot of college courses and high school classes that do work on Wikipedia without notifying WMF Education. What I was mainly concerned about though was informing you about the unblocking, if it occurs. I don't know if this is an official Checkuser block but I understand they are not to be overturned or lifted except by consent of a CUer. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI move

Can this be reverted? The SPI page was moved and the original page edited. clpo13(talk) 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Bagumba got it. clpo13(talk) 09:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fairfax draft

Hi Venjagenije,

Now that I copy and pasted my article to the My First Article space, I can't find it. all I can find is my original "Talk" page that I had been using to design my article. Can you pleaseCmathias1 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC) navigate me to my Frank Fairfax article in My First Article? Thank you.[reply]

@Cmathias1: Are you looking for this: Draft:Frank Fairfax? You can find all your edits in your contributions page (just click "contributions" at the top right corner of the screen). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingshowman SPI

I think your merge notice is pointed the wrong way [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kingshowman] shouldn't that say that future cases should be filed at KingShowman? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: I have no idea what are you talking about. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I just caught it at a bad moment in time. see this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kingshowman&direction=prev&oldid=694213139 Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valsartan/sacubitril

Hello Vanjagenije,

I just wanted to apologize for breaking the sockpuppet rule by editing the Valsartan/sacubitril article under multiple IP addresses. This was not done with intent to deceive (In several places I claim credit for edits made under the other IP addresses), but simply out of ignorance of the rules. At no point did I attempt to pretend that these different IP accounts were different editors in order to manipulate the appearance of concensus or to violate WP:3RR

I tried to do the right thing here, seeking outside input at the Medicine Project page, and actively seeking discussion on the Talk page. I won't bore you with the details of the conflict or my criticisms of the behavior of those on the other side of the discussion. But I'd like to say that I am very concerned that our medical articles reflect expert consensus, as like it or not, people do make medical decisions based on what they read here. I tried to do that by adding a quote from the conclusions of the study cited in the "Controversies" section, as I felt the criticisms in the cited article were taken out of context to present a negative view that the authors did not intend.

I broke the rules, even if inadvertently, and will not ask for unprotecting the article or any special considerations here. I would ask that you keep an eye on the article, and try to make sure the content matches what is said in the sources. I think our readers deserve that irrespective of the mistakes I made here. If you could look in on this I'd be very much in your debt.

Respectfully, 2601:643:8100:8AF4:CB9:A6AB:C5C7:8F1E (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC) (as well as the other two IP addresses :>) )[reply]

Even if you fully disclose that you are using several accounts and/or IPs, you are expected not to edit same articles and not to take part in the same discussions. Anyway, you are free to register an account. I protected the article for a week so that only confirmed users may edit it. If you register an account, you may ask me to give you the "confirmed" status, and you'll be able to edit the article right away. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that. I am reluctant to register an account for reasons that are too complicated to discuss here, so will wait out the protection and see what happens. My guess is that someone from the Medicine Project, where I left a note, will take care of it before the protection expires. Thanks and I will be more careful going forward. 73.162.132.47 (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(and sorry for the multiple IP addresses here - guess I'm not off to a great start on my commitment above). 73.162.132.47 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi V.
I am curious as to the conditions that would pertain if I were to register. I've tried very hard to obey the rules here as I have understood them, and was fairly horrified to find find a non-removable note on my Talk page accusing me of deliberately attempting to deceive other editors. This has been a very depressing experience and I did not sleep well last night.
Is there anything that can be done here or should I just walk away? I really just can't see how I can meaningfully participate here with that mark of shame permanently associated with my account.
I realize that the options at this point may be limited, but would be interested if you have any thoughts. I understand of course that this situation is of my own creation and that there might not be much that can be done.
As a minor point I'd like to suggest that as this infraction is viewed so severely, it might be nice to tweak the software so as to avoid people getting caught by accident. I've found that the software records one's contribution not according to the IP address of the server one is currently using, but according to the IP address one was at when the site was first opened. Without realizing that it was a rule, I initally made some effort to maintain a single IP address at each article, but traveling between work and home, my edits made from my laptop at home would be recorded as coming from my work IP address and vice versa. (This, for example, is what happened above on this page). After a while I made enough mistakes that I sort of threw in the towel. All things being equal, it might be nice to make it easy for people to be compliant.
Respectfully, 73.162.132.47 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, first of all, there is no such thing as "a non-removable note". You are free to remove any warning from your talk page, except in some very rare cases (see: WP:REMOVED). If an editor does not register an account, all his edits are attributed to his (current) IP address. You have been using at least four different IPs, as I can see. That was probably not your intention, but internet service providers often change IP address of their customers without their knowledge. You shouldn't take this situation so dramatically. In your situation, I strongly recommend creating an account. That way, you will avoid accusations of trying to deceive other editors. But, you would also have several other benefits: All your edits would be attributed to your single account regardless of your location at the time of editing. That would help other editors to see that you are one person, and to respect you better. You would be also able to participate in some internal discussions that limited only to registered accounts. If you have some reason not to register an account, please share it with me, maybe that reason isn't really a reason, but a misconception. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi V.
Thank you for your time and patience. There are some issues that I prefer not to discuss on the public boards. Perhaps I'll set up a temporary account so that these can be discussed by email. In any case, thank you very much for your thoughtful and very helpful remarks and comments. 2601:643:8100:8AF4:159A:C881:D702:E639 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Interesting to note that my IP address just changed though I am on the same server as I was when I wrote last night. This business of trying to maintain a single IP address per article is quite complicated!) 2601:643:8100:8AF4:159A:C881:D702:E639 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for deleted page

Hi,

Several days ago I edited an new page. Since I directly copy some sentences, the page was totally deleted. How can I get the content in it because at the time I tried to rewrite it, I found I didn't save it. Page title: Illinois Leadership Certificate

Thanks, Cathyxq (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cathyxq: Your article "Illinois Leadership Certificate" was WP:copy-pasted from a copyrighted web site, which is a copyright violation. Therefore, I can't provide you the content of the article (I can do it technically, but I would be making copyright violation myself). If you want to write the article again, you have to do it from the scratch, and using your own words. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cathyxq (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)@Vanjagenije Oh I copied the requirements but the rest programs introduction were written by myself. So could I get the rest part back?[reply]

@Cathyxq: I copied material to your userspace (User:Cmathias1/Illinois Leadership Certificate). You can work on it in your userspace as long as you want. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Thanks, I will rewrite the requirements. However, though I can write that in my own words, that would seem similar (requirements for the certificate are something difficult to make changes). Is that would still be a problem?
@Cathyxq: You don't need to ping me here, this is my talk page, so I am automatically notified about any edit . I know that some things are hard to tell in your own words, but that is the only solution. But, I think there is a much larger problem with that subject, and that is the WP:NOTABILITY. Every Wikipedia article has to cite several reliable independent sources that significantly discuss the subject (see: WP:42) in order to establish the notability of the subject. Otherwise, the article might be deleted. Your article cites only one source, which is the official web site of the Illinois Leadership Center, and so that source is not independent. If you want to publish that article, you have to prove the notability of the subject by citing some reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Independent reliable sources are: books, newspaper articles, journals, trusted web news portals, etc. And remember, significant coverage is needed. If the source just mentions the subject in passing, that is not enough. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser blocks

Hi Vanj, regarding your comment here, I just want to emphasise beyond any doubt that if a CheckUser block is marked as a CheckUser block (per WP:CUBL) then it is a CheckUser block and cannot be undone without the prior consent of a checkuser/ArbCom. Any questions, please let me know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll remember that. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Kevin Gorman is related in case you hadn't seen it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jujyboy1&curid=48746063&diff=694389148&oldid=694338124 Please check the block log and read the request before providing advice. The sockpuppet was not blocked for the behaviour and no additional block was applied to the sockmaster. I opened the request specifically because of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I don't really understand what you expect in this case. Both the sock and the master are blocked. The sock is blocked because of the vandalism, but he is blocked. I can't block him twice at the same time. He is clearly tagged as a confirmed sock at his userpage. Re-blocking just to put the socking rationale in the log is a waste of time. The master is already under a one week block, and I believe there is no reason to reblock him at this moment, as the article in question is already under Pending changes protection now. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jujyboy1&diff=694276328&oldid=694275597
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FJujyboy1&type=revision&diff=694338124&oldid=694333270
I thought it was fairly clear. In the first edit I requested "Please extend block to Jujyboy1 for block evasion and lock the article in question to match duration of block to Jujyboy1 so as to avoid further need to block." In the second set I requested "While Billcipher2 is blocked for abusive editing, the block evasion should also be addressed." Jujyboy1 intentionally evaded the block by creating a new account, twice, and we have only acted on the first action. I expected the editor to have created a third account by this time and make edits to the page again. That clearly hasn't happened. If it does, I'll request page protection for the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock or clueless or maybe neither

I've just come across User:Archivecraft, a "new" user with a peculiar pattern of edits which consists mainly of blanking the main sandbox (to run up his/her edit count?), and messing with SPIs and the Sock tags on user accounts. It leads me to believe it may be a sock, but I have no idea whose it may be. It probably hasn't made the grade for WP:ILLEGIT yet, but it may provide some glue to link two or more existing sock clusters. Regards, Bazj (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not clueless given the speed of this reaction. Bazj (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{Checkuser needed}}. Archivecraft is definitely a sock-puppet, I don't know whose. He is already blocked as a sock on Russian Wikipedia. I suspect him being a sock of Никита-Родин-2002 (evidence: correcting socktag placed by an IP editor on his own user page). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, a look behind the curtain might be helpful. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No master at all, and no other socks that I can be sure of. Is it worth seeing if CUs on the Russia Wikipedia can help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe OneLittleMouse can help us, since he blocked Archivecraft in Russian Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Никита-Родин-2002. Other accounts from the same IP - Вудд, Бессрочно1, Телепедия. OneLittleMouse (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I blocked Archivecraft and Вудд, as other two accounts do not exist in English Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I have added user Its Eastside at the SPI. - DVdm (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt. And can't check it - no account in ruwiki. OneLittleMouse (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1. OneLittleMouse (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanjagenije, DoRD, Callanecc, OneLittleMouse, DVdm, nice to know I'm not just paranoid. Bazj (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Никита-Роддин-2002

  • Совести у этого участника нет. Он везде занимается вандализма угрожая, преследует, созданием multi-account zokidin5 принимайте мери. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.34.28.60 (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German playing cards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcarpathia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosyangel121 SPI

Hey there. I just realized after the SPI for Rosyangel121 was archived that in fact it looks like these accounts were actually controlled by an even older account that had earlier used multiple accounts: [[10]]. I missed this account because the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Max Goodwin was edited by another sock to remove the comment by the Dragonfly009 account: [11]. As you can see, Dragonfly009 voted at the AfD to keep the article, and it appears that he is Goodwin himself. He was previously warned on his talk page. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how to add an older master to an SPI. Looks like this is a long term and persistent problem. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive

Vanja, I don't understand your tagging of the four accounts in my findings. I don't see any consistency, even in each pair.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, Vanja only tagged MahnOfSteel and Rishika.dhanawade, both as confirmed. I had previously tagged Derevation as blocked as Digvijay411 as suspected as per the previous archived report: the latter was tagged "suspected" since they were blocked by JzG on behavioural evidence, and the former as "blocked" because they admitted themself to the socking. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying that. I've retagged the other two as confirmed. It makes no sense for two accounts that are confirmed to each other not to have the same tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, since neither pair was ever explicitly confirmed to the master, I would've opted instead to tag MahnOfSteel as "blocked" (same as Derevation who it was confirmed to), and Rishika.dhanawade as "suspected" (same as Digvijay411 who he was confirmed to). But on the whole... it's a fairly moot bureaucratic point. What matters is: there was socking going on. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Salvidrim for clarifying. Yes, that is what happened. I thought that Derevation and Digvijay411 are certainly socks, so I tagged other two accounts as confirmed, but did not change the tags of the first two. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This situation comes up frequently, and the problem is we don't have a template that covers the situation. We also don't have complete agreement among the CheckUsers. Take the simplest scenario. A is the master. B and C are accounts that are confirmed to each other and also have some degree of technical relationship with the master but not confirmed. We need a template for B and C that says something like "This account has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts and is a [1] sock puppet of A." [1] would be "suspected" or it would be blank (the same as proven) depending on the case. I wouldn't change any of the existing templates as that's always dicey to avoid affecting the ones currently in use. It would be a new template.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We (and by that I mean Callanecc mostly) have worked hard to standardize all the usecases of socktags under a single template ({{sockpuppet}}), which is then modulable by parameters; so this could simply be a new parameter format or something. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so can you (by that I mean Callanecc mostly) come up with something? If it can be done with the existing template without affecting anything else, that's fine by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't be too hard to do within the current Sockpuppet template, but will be fidley so I probably won't be able to get to it for a few weeks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Callanecc: Good to hear. Let us know when you've had a chance to do it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Callanecc. I assume it's not live yet? The only thing I notice is you don't have a "Use" column for the new parameters. I like the column as it's a summary description of what it's to be used for. How do I test it so I see the language it actually produces?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't at this stage but when it goes live (it's not yet as you said) I'll add descriptions. The code for the four different instances is written in the table on the testcases page. So you can change the usernames, and add other parameters (from the second table on that page). Currently the change only supports cases where the sock account is confirmed or proven, and where the link to the main master is proven or confirmed. So it's exactly the same as {{Sockpuppet}} except you need to call the {tl|Sockpuppet/sandbox}} version (plus the two new parameters). Does that help? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the use descriptions (it's still not live). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The use descriptions are a bit wordy, no? :-) It seems like there are duplicates; is there a reason for that? There's also one more possibility needed in my view, and that is where A is a confirmed sock of B and it is neither a suspected or proven puppet of the master. For example, I come across two accounts that are clearly socks of each other but are either unrelated or unlikely to the SPI master. That's not necessary if a new SPI is created with a different master, but that doesn't always happen, particularly when there are only two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are, I've sort of explained it two ways (which I'll shorten when it does go live) so it's really clear. Duplicates? You can do that with the current sockpuppet template by specifying a different spi page with the |spipage= parameter. For example {{sock|Example|confirmed|spipage=Scibaby}} (is that what you mean)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Callanecc: I like the changes. But, the SPI helper script needs to be updated after those changes are introduced. I almost never use those sockpuppet templates manually, so the script should also be able to handle new parameters. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's Timotheus Canens's territory, I can't do java very well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    JavaScript, not Java, Callanecc. I can look into this, but don't think I have time to implement it this week. T. Canens (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I was just being lazy. It's not urgent that the functionality is expanded to include this, so it can really happen any time after it's live. Thanks Tim. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Callanecc: I think that Template:Sockpuppeteer should be espanded similarly. We need something like "CheckUser evidence confirms that the owner of this account has abusively used multiple accounts, and he is also suspected sockpuppet of X". Vanjagenije (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it'd be better to use both templates on the userpage rather than put them both into one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Callanecc: I just now noticed that this new template does not add the page to the category "Suspected socks of..." for the alternative master (see this as example). Is that intentional? Shouldn't the user page be added to both categories, for both masters? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In nomine Sancte

Hello, you reviewed one of my articles, which had the "under construction" template. You placed a multiple issues template on it. I was doing a translation from spanish wikipedia, so I appreciate when people correct grammaticcal or spelling mistakes; as for the content, I think it would be convenient that you waited until the article was done to add any observations. I invite you to check it again, and see if it is better. Greetings. Diana rz (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Diana rz: You added sources, which is good. But, the article is still an WP:Orphan. You should try to WP:DE-ORPHAN. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My SPI reports

Hi Vanjagenije - my recent SPI reports have been shocking haven't they :-/ my most sincere apologies. Do you have any additional resources I should re-read (other than sitting down and re-reading WP:SPI)? -- samtar whisper 20:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Samtar: Yes. This one was especially disappointing. You had a week to respond, but you did not. I don't know what reading can help there. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, apologies - I'm going to stay clear of SPI for a good couple of months and revisit it, I'm not entirely sure why my attention there is severely lacking. I too am disappointed in myself for the above case -- samtar whisper 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddiqui

I don't usually involve myself in SPI cases unless they are extremely obvious but I have to check and ask if you are sure about the block of Mar4d. This editor has been active for over 5 years and has almost 60,000 edits. Meanwhile, this case was put together by The Avengers, a two month old account (filing a SPI is unusual for such a young account). And I don't think it is uncommon for editors who work in the Pakistan or India subject areas to have articles they have edited in common. But I'll admit that this isn't an area I edit in and I haven't encountered any of these parties before.

You have the SPI clerk experience that I don't have but I would hate it if Wikipedia lost a long-time contributor because their area of interest overlapped with another account who was found to be a sockmaster. I wouldn't be posting here if a checkuser had been run but since this block was based on behavioral evidence, I need to ask if you are absolutely sure. I also notice that the block notice placed on says Mar4d's user page says This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser when this is not the case. At best, Mar4d is a suspected sockpuppet.

It's unusual for editors who have made so many contributions over the years to Wikipedia to be found to be a sockpuppet. Thank you for considering this. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Mar4d was blocked by Bbb23, and not by myself. He was confirmed by a checkuser (Bbb23) to two other accounts (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Siddiqui/Archive#22_November_2015). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is my error, I assumed the block was based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddiqui because Mar4d posted about his block to his talk page today. I assumed the block was made based on this filing yesterday.
Thank you for your gracious correction. It's unfortunate that an editor who contributed so much to Wikipedia created these accounts years ago and continued to use them (well, Sardr8 was actively used, Acejet had been inactive for over 4 years until he made one talk page edit in October). I don't see a connection to Siddiqui though or that one was stated in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddiqui/Archive#22 November 2015 but I guess that is a matter to discuss with Bbb23. Thanks again for being cordial about this questioning. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I merged the case on Mar4d to the case of Siddiqui without consulting Bbb23. U did so based on the evidence presented by The Avengers at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Siddiqui/Archive#15_December_2015. But, as I look into the matter now, I'm not so sure about it any more. Editor interaction utility has not been working for the last few days, so It was hard for me to make detailed behavioral analysis. If you agree, I can separate those two cases again and de-tag Mar4d as Siddiqui sock. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's sounds like a good idea. I can see that Mar4d has sockpuppets but I think connecting him to Siddiqui is less verifiable because most of his reports are from years ago. I'm not sure what you would compare Mar4d to. Thanks for reconsidering this. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

apologies

OK so I started the checkuser in the archive, my apologies not the correct part, but take care, WP:SHOUTING is not really needed in your edit summary. If you had looked, the sock is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D47817 Thank you for correcting the entry for Cenfin8. JarrahTree 13:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same sock is back with a vengeance today. I have submitted in the correct place now I hope [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D47817] JarrahTree 11:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned you

In this very tiresome business, at Arbcom I have mentioned you. I would have pinged you but I can never get the spelling right. I wish this storm in a teacup would simply blow over. Mistakes are mistakes and folk need to get over them. Yours was an honest error, properly apologised for. So was KG's. Fiddle Faddle 11:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock with unknown master

Hey Vanjagenije. Scallywag5 resignup (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has admitted to socking on might be socking based on his/her userpage. Since I don't know the master, I wasn't sure where to report this. — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 22:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Well, I wouldn't call that "admitting to socking". They say that their first account was blocked "for promotional purposes". If it was blocked based on the promotional username (so called soft block), then he is allowed to create new account (see: {{Uw-softerblock}}). We have to investigate further. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the statement, I took it to mean that this is account 3; however, it seems that I misread it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Vanjagenije as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 06:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: Thank you very much. I do celebrate Christmas, but on 7 January [O.S. 25 December]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Thanks for the OS mention and I forgot to say congratulations on your successful RFA. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nahla Rowe

Can you please salt these two articles? Nahla Rowe and Nahla Rowe (singer). This is part of an aggressive hoax campaign using photos of a real person named Sherise Cromwell. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: I'm not sure that's needed. WP:SALT says that an article title should be salted if it's "repeatedly recreated". None of those two articles was recreated after being deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was recreated with "(singer)" attached. This is an extremely aggressive campaign - there is an SPI ongoing describing their efforts. There is no such person named Nahla Rowe. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: Yes I understand the situation, but I just think that such protection is not needed. If the page is recreated, but under different title (like this one), than salting cannot help. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual sock puppetry case

Hi Vanjagenije,

I have come across an atypical case of sock puppetry and block evasion, involving the innapropriate use of 3 accounts (2 with near similar spelling and a third to hide the tracks after one of them was globally locked).

Accounts Omar-Toons (with capital "T") and Omar-toons (with lower-case "t") were created on April 2010 and October 2010 respectively. They were used concurrently to "edit" more or less the same articles related to North Africa, at times, even on the same day, such as here and here.
After numerous blocks, including one for socking using IP, Omar-Toons was finally globally locked for massive crosswiki edit-warring on July the 29th, 2012.
On July the 30th, 2012 (less than 24 hours after the global block), a third account TooNs-NC was created for the sole purpose of cuningly and deliberately deceiving the admins. Claiming a forgotten password (obviously, he could not log in since he was blocked), the user redirected Omar-Toons' page [12] and talk page [13] to the new account (even though, he had no right to mess with a blocked account). Three hours later, after a couple of pretend contributions, he archived the pages, redirected them to Omar-toons and shelved the temporary account (claiming it was a bad idea to create it). He also added "formerly Omar-Toons" to his page[14] knowing full well that When you click on it, you get redirected to the new page and won't notice anything unusual.

I did mention this a couple of weeks ago at the ANI when an admin suggested a topic ban for Omar-toons, surprisingly, the discussion was archived shortly afterwards before any action could be taken. In hindsight, it probably wasn't the best place to post it.

Seeing as all three accounts are directly interlinked, a CU seems rather unnecessary, so I am not sure on how to proceed. I will be grateful for any help you can provide. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Omar-Toons is globally locked, but is not blocked. @Vituzzu: Can you help us here? You locked Omar-Toons [15] for "massive crosswiki edit-warring". Vanjagenije (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned with the lock evasion. It's the sock puppetry (to avoid scrutiny) and the use of a third account to hide the tracks that I have an issue with. M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwu12345 sock

I've just blocked WarriDelta. No CU needed as the userpage content I deleted was identical to the first version of IYLE. Maybe just keep it on file and add it if/when the SPI needs reopening. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Thanks. I tagged his user page. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking

You're an absolute rock, Vanja. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seriously. You're awesome! :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtremedood

You blocked the IP[16] as sock of Xtremedood, now what really matters is that the original block of Xtremedood should be expanded. I am little bit confused here though, because it is marked as "checkuser block", so it will have to be discussed with Ponyo first, but then I guess it is not needed because you will be only extending the block to an indefinite block. We can wait for Ponyo's opinion here.

1 week block by far, was absolutely a lenient block. I thought that only those users are given 1 week - 1 month block, that are not actually aware of sock puppetry policies. But Xtremedood had been abusing his IP and other account since his first day, and it went for over 11 months already.

I didn't had enough interaction with Xtremedood, although I got to check his edits recently after this SPI,[17] it seems like every edit of him needs to be checked. But his massive edit warring,[18][19][20][21][22] forum shopping,[23][24][25][26] misleading ANI reports,[27][28][29] personal attacks[30] and more problems that are wasting our time and uselessly increasing work. That's why Ponyo aso had same view, he also told him that "Your account has been disruptive from the get-go"[31] and Xtremedood considered it to be "attempt to silence views you seem to disagree" and "extreme POV bias".[32]

You can also read his unblock request comments,[33] he was blaming "Indian" users for his policy breaches. Which means that he had himself rejected any policy breach. If this is brought to ANI, outcome would be still indefinite block, or even site ban. That's why indefinite block is completely justified here. Capitals00 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended Xtremedood's block based on the findings at the SPI. An immediate indef block on a master account with thousands of edits and nearly a year of editing isn't common, you have to provide the user at least the chance to reform and edit constructively. They've been given two chances now, I don't expect they'll get much more if they continue to evade their block. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00: I agree with Ponyo. Indefinite block is still not a good idea, but if he continues, it is certainly an option. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' greetings!

Steel1943 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vanjagenije, hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: Thank you very much. I wish you happy holidays too. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

and as you're around, you dealt with a sock case that may relate to WP:ANI#Anyone want to untangle this, um, really really really not here?. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: Thank you very much. I wish you merry Christmas too. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Velebit sleepers

I went back to have a skim through the archive to have a look if I missed any more IPs, and it occurred to me to check for sleepers again. Sadly, I found one - in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Purger from 2006, User:Essjay had found User:Oesterling which was not named in the complaint, and noted "he's using a lot of 4.x.x.x addresses", while only 2 were named in the complaint. That looks like they checked for sleepers and found them? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Well, two sleepers from 9 and a half years ago is not really a reason to expect new sleepers now. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're "lucky" behavioral evidence becomes fairly obvious fairly fast, but I still don't see a downside in doing a check. Having had to waste a lot of time with "Luciano di Martino" a few years back, which was investigated separately and only correlated with Velebit later, I would recommend that we use all the tools at our disposal to avoid wasting more time in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated the latest range a bit more and it seems obvious that 65.220.39.64/26 is suspicious, as I've tagged multiple IPs there, and only one was a false positive (one had a single edit on Luis Suarez). Others were dead giveaways, such as [34] which references User:NovaNova's edit from 2007. So, yes, he's actually at it and remembers stuff from 8 years ago - so it stands to reason that we should remember stuff from 9 years ago. Please check if new accounts were created from that netblock in the last year that edit in the WP:ARBMAC topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The useful link is [35] --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: I don't understand your request. I want checkuser to run a sleepers check because there are IP socks? I don't see any connection. Sleepers check is not run unless there is a reasonable basis for believing that other accounts exists. That is not what I say, that was said by several checkusers many times (see this example [36]). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if we need to run checkuser six months from now when a new suspicious account appears (not an IP sock), will everything be stale again? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: In six months from now everything will be stale regardless of whether we make a check now or not. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

GABHello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best wishes,

GABHello! 01:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thanks a lot. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David Cossgrove

Hi! Can you tell me the thinking that went into archiving the comments which answered the IPs questions? BMK (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Nevermind, I just saw on AN/I that you had blocked the IP as a self-confessed sock, so it makes perfect sense. Sorry to bother you. BMK (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about an SPI report

Hello Vanjagenije, and congrats on your success at RfA! Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique which I've semied due to IP edit warring. It appears that the case has been hopefully waiting for some input from you. You should decide where to go from here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hr team

Hello, could you please block Hr team (talk · contribs) for repeatedly creating Gangisetty ashok kumar, which seems to be a copy vio and a breach of User name policy. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: he is already blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw that.. happened as I was typing on your Talk page. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this

Hello. When checking the contributions of an IP that had made unconstructive edits on a number of articles I found this edit on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive, looking like the IP had tried to file an SPI report, but had made it in the wrong place. So would you mind taking a look at it, and move it to the right place (or whatever)? Thomas.W talk 13:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Thanks, I'll take a look. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W: Actually, the same report is already in the right place (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert). Seams the IP made it twice. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Thomas.W talk 14:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Vanjagenije, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016.
Happy editing,
Krakkos (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Krakkos: Thanks a lot. I wosh you a Merry Christmas too. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-)

Thanks for removing my duplicate SPI report. I caught wind of what I did after I submitted it, but figured it would be best if a clerk took care of it. Didn't want to crap on anyone's thunder. Have a happy (and safe!) New Years :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!

Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!

Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
@Davey2010: Thanks. Happy New Year to you too. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Have a great day :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Vanja!

Vanja, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor Talk! 05:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on!
Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.
Information icon Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)
@Sam Sailor: Thanks a lot. Happy New Year to you, too. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egaplaicesp and Tirgil34

Happy New Year Vanjagenije. As the previous case on Tirgil34 and Egaplaicesp was a little bit chaotic, i have created a new one in an as simple way as possible. Please review it, as Tirgil34 and Egaplaicesp are clearly the same person. Krakkos (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun acting like a check user

TopGun is not a check user or administrator. What rights has he got to tag these as my socks?

1,

2,

3,

4.

I am not Maheshkumaryadav. --223.176.5.204 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see they were blocked by DoRD and globally blocked by others, but they didn't tag them. Please ask TopGun where did he get CU results. 223.176.5.204 (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TopGun: Can you explain this? What is the reason of your tagging those accounts? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me. I'm not acting as a checkuser as the IP sock of CosmicEmperor claims (not sure why it is being entertained on-wiki anyway). I tagged the socks due to the fact that 1) they were CU blocked and 2) they were obviously WP:DUCK socks of CE (I don't think any credible editor is barred from tagging socks even more so, such obvious ones). This is clearly noticeable from the habit of CosmicEmperor's CU proven / blocked sock "The Avengers" who "thanked" my contributions at his own SPI... now these socks obviously claiming to be CE and trolling, do the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TopGun: But, seams that three of those have no edits at all, not even deleted edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to enter the "thanks" link. They thanked me at the SPI as I said (exactly as The Avengers did): [37]. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TopGun: What about Maheshkumaryadav? Did he thank you? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I tagged him as a suspected sockpuppet. Due to 1) Avengers asking another user at his talkpage if he 'remembered' Maheshkumaryadav while trolling and also when a user appeared with the name 'CosmicEmperor is Maheshkumaryadav'. I can't be sure about this case about Maheshkumaryadav and remains a strong suspicion however, I'm certain about the ones that thanked me in a trolling way like The Avengers. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TopGun: OK, thanks for explanation. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Perumudivakkam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sita Devi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar

Hi Vanja, I pinged you at this SPI a couple of days ago. If you don't want to do the clerical work I requested, that's fine, but I just need to know one way or the other. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: No problem, I just forgot about it. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlkReadEditView history

I've reblocked User:AlkReadEditView history without talk page access, given the long string of edits such as [38]. I can't explain what he's doing, but if you want to unblock, reduce the block time, or otherwise modify anything, you have my permission. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: No, actually you are perfectly right. After reviewing his edits, I realize that it is a vandalism-only account. Should be indeffed anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I'm generally very hesitant to issue a VOAblock, preferring instead to give a short block with something saying "if you shape up, you'll be welcome here", but someone who mangles user talk page archives and has such a username is already a bit familiar with Wikipedia and isn't likely to be convinced by a short block, so this is one of those rare situations where I thought a first-off VOAblock appropriate. I wasn't going to modify your block initially, but post-block replacing his talk page with part of yours is a separate offense and made him ripe for additional sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Looks like he is already sockpuppeting (see the history of this page). Vanjagenije (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already saw that; see Special:Log/Nyttend. Would you mind filing and self-endorsing a CU request? Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{Checkuser needed}} I don't think a SPI is needed. I'm asking a checkuser to block the IP/range behind this user.Vanjagenije (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've comparatively rarely filed SPIs, and they're always the kind of stuff that can wait a little while, not something like this where we need to stop a rampage in progress. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still checking, but I have a question. Do you have evidence that this user was using IP addresses? Or are you interested in preventing any user from using the IP(s) this user was using when editing as a named account? Two very different things; the latter would be a hard block. I'm finding many accounts that are  Confirmed to this account, but they're all already blocked, no doubt because the vandalism is so egregious they're easy to spot. I just need to know where I'm going with this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: It is the latter option. I wanted you to stop this person creating new accounts by blocking his IP range. I have no evidence of him editing anonymously. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[editconflict] I'm not aware of this person editing without an account; all the damage I've seen has been with "User:AlkReadEditView history" and "Wikipedia is made by people like you.Wikipedia is made by people like you." Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done. I couldn't block as wide a range as I wished because of collateral damage, so it'll probably prevent a few, but there may be others. Vanja, do you remember a nest of socks whose usernames mocked administrators?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Well, no. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije/Archive_11&oldid=1079537650"