User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 12    Archive 13    Archive 14 >
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)


Recently closed Sockpuppet investigation request

Hi Vanjagenije,

You recently addressed the SI investigation I had requested. Thank you, and thanks to 0x010C, to whom you had asked hindsights from the French-Wikipedian perspective about the matter. However, I am afraid those hindsights are not absolutely factual. This could be tedious, but let me just list out a few very profound doubts about the conclusion you were enticed to draw.

Reminder-recent Sockpuppet comment

First I want to explain the background of प्रजापति, the puppet-master. He has been banned from frwiki in March 2015, after a few month of disorganising (WP:POINT) many community debates and requests, especially our Articles for deletion procedure, and for harassing several contributors. Since this date, he began to come back regularly on frwiki to continue what he was doing. In ~one year, he created more than 200 accounts to hide his actions. See fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/प्रजापति for more details. 

	+
    • Concerning Дарфбунк пакт дунфт, he came on Hégésippe Cormier's (the one who had blocked him initially) talk page here on enwiki to complain about the deletion of the article about Nathalie Martin (article which didn't met the french notability requirements). It was already a previous प्रजापति's sockpuppet who had created the article, and there were an other one who cames to complain about the deletion on frwiki (see full details here).
	+
    • Concerning Darthbunk Pakt Dunft, the link was also obvious, even if the Check User request conclude on an undetermined result. He had the exact same behaviour and expressions as many other of the confirmed sockpuppets of प्रजापति: A few day after his registration, he re-open an Article for deletion discussion, disturb some other one, and go annoy Lomita on her talk page. Schlum, the CU who managed the request, conclude by saying that प्रजापति had clearly found a new internet access. (emphasis mine)
	+

While I cannot say if indeed Дарфбунк пакт дунфт is the same person as प्रजापति, I really think it is very easy for any user with bad intentions to usurp the distinctive signature of another. The fact is the first (or only) of these users did this here: he created an account with the distinctive signature of another account. They may or not be the same. Therefore, Дарфбунк пакт дунфт and Darthbunk Pakt Dunft are not ″obviously linked″ except by the sole will of Дарфбунк пакт дунфт to imitate/usurp Darthbunk Pakt Dunft. If he wanted to harass someone as Darthbunk Pakt Dunft indeed why do so? and if he wanted to pass unnoticed why use this distinctive and already noted signature??? These users being just one does not make sense.

For the rest, not only was the Fr-WP user check inconclusive, but the checker stated that (quote): the usual access used by प्रजापति} and the access used by Darthbunk Pakt Dunft did not look alike....(See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d%27adresses_IP/Requêtes#Demande_concernant_Darthbunk_Pakt_Dunft_-_6_mars_, where an IP user notices the fact twice and insists it is a probable gross usurpation...).
As for Darthbunk Pakt Dunft having any of the the same behavior and expressions as प्रजापति, I found no trace of that ( a quick glance on their respective contributions, shows Darthbunk Pakt Dunft makes no major mistakes with verbs, while प्रजापति often does, for instance).
The only two things that are factual were immediately stressed on Fr. Wiki- were that Darthbunk Pakt Dunft recreated (he did not open an AFd TP, by the way, he just recreated the page) one of the many articles u|प्रजापति had been active on (one year before...); the second fact being thatt his/her signature (you see?...) was in cyrillic... Based on these (for me, very weak) premises, two users explained they believed he was जापति. Darthbunk Pakt Dunft said twice s/he was not. When I look at जापति's list of SI, I see he created accounts named SupremeAkeron, various named LGD, etc, that are obviously mocking/quoting others users's names, one being a sysop. I do not think anyone on Fr.WP believed they were the same person, did they? As for cyrillic, it may perhaps be nothing more than an obvious sign of interest for Russia or Ukraine (see the user's contributions).

When I read that Darthbunk Pakt Dunft ″disturbed″ and ″annoyed″ (??) two users on French Wikipedia, I also have to say, I found no trace of that. He wrote several messages on Lomita's page (to ask this sysop the code text of the page I mentioned above, if I am not mistaken), messages that Lomita answered without particularly apparent angst; is this annoying someone, on a Wiki project? and as for Schlum's conclusion (he did not manage the UC, by the way, that was another checker), it is (again) grounded on the username and on Дарфбунк пакт дунфт harassing H. Cormier, on this Wikipedia. I really do think we have a case of cross-wiki-vicious identity usurpation (in the usual meaning of the word) here; we should protect this from happening and not block the wrong person. Wikipedians trust Usercheckers and Sysops to do so. The usurpation of distinctive signature is just another type of identity usurpation we have to be wary of.

Again, the only facts I found here were that Darthbunk Pakt Dunft's signature was used by Дарфбунк пакт дунфт on Feb. 26 on the sole purpose of writing comments on Hégésippe Cormier's TP. The latter did then assume Datthbunk Pakt Dunft was the same user, again on no other ground than this (potentially obvious) signature/name usurpation (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Requête_aux_administrateurs/2016/Semaine_10#Darthbunk_Pakt_Dunft_:_question_aux_ornithologues), an opinion 0x010C immediately endorsed, certainly because he trusts his fellow sysop and took his opinion at face value. An honest mistake in my idea.

My question is: Did an IP address and technical check tend to prove that Darthbunk Pakt Dunft could be the same user as Дарфбунк пакт дунфт? If no technical check has been done, I kindly trust you to examine the case again. I really do think French sysops committed an honest mistake here, and that they have been very likely played by a tricky user. Double checking before endorsing this, seems the right thing to do. Yours,--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@S.P.R. Lewitt: I reopened the case. But, I have to ask you something: how do you know about all of this? You have 5 edits here and 0 in French encyclopedia, yet you know everything about this case. Do you also use multiple accounts? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Vanjagenije. I think it was the right thing to do. Your asking about me is absolutely fair. I have no other active account neither on the French nor on this Wikipedia. I used to contribute to this Wikipedia but stopped being active, although an avid reader of it. This case attracted my curiosity and I created this account to share my doubts. I was thinking I could contribute only outside of the Main space with it whenever I see something worth spending the time I spent researching this case (It took me time, I confess). My main concerns and interests are privacy, identity, protection of the users and policy issues. I believe they are the critical point of this project. I don't plan to go back contributing to the article pages, anyway. But who knows? Yours, --S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@S.P.R. Lewitt: It's nice that you want to help, but you should know that the critical point of this project is creating and maintaining articles. That is what encyclopedia is about. Everything else is secondary. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Googie architecture

Thanks for your edit to Googie architecture. I agree the article was packed with images, but it's a very visual topic. While I added back the photo you removed, I also resized many of the photos, and restored the gallery to a standard smaller size (someone had made the photos huge). A few years ago I started a talk page discussion about the photos on the article. I think it's still there. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: It looks wery ugly on my screen (I have wide 1680x1050 resolution). The column of images on the right is longer than the whole article. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can some be moved to the gallery? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 – Vanjagenije (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supdiop/Profile101

Hi Vanjagenije. Should the SPIs of Supdiop (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Profile101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) be merged based on this and this? — JJMC89 (T·C) 12:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Checkuser needed}}. I'm not sure, maybe he is just impersonating. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, they look Red X Unrelated. Mike V • Talk 14:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Administrator's Barnstar

The Administrator's Barnstar
Thank you for all of your administrative work here, especially in the case of YahwehSaves' SPI.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thanks a lot. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Looking forward to the Checkuser barnstar, Vanjagenije... That's where the big bucks are! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

about xiangzi9

please no block me its my another account email only same user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iching4096 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iching4096: You are not allowed to user multiple accounts to edit same articles. Please chose one account that you are going to use. Which one that would be? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i only use this now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iching4096 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iching4096: OK. Just remember no to use more than one account unless you clearly declare the connection on your user page (see: WP:SOCK). And, pleae, sign your posts (see here how to sign: WP:SIGN). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bolgitalianissimano

Hi Vanjagenije, I am writing to you because in the past you have already taken part in this case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bolgitalianissimano. I am the user who is accused to be a fake of this blocked user. Since in that discussion no admin has taken part yet, I am bringing it to your attention. I am not self-reporting, if I were guilty I would have every interest in leaving this case sleeping instead of signaling it. In short, last time it was Bartleby08 to report my account Onegyrol08 because I dared to revert his removals of Italian IPAs from articles about South Tyrol, that is encyclopedic content. He did it 3 times before stopping, but he complained to his friend Mai-Sachme who, after telling him to ignore me, in response spent from 9:30 p.m. to midnight to add German IPAs to all cities in South Tyrol (unsourced and contradicting the Help:IPA for German they redirect to). I tried doing the same thing as Bartleby08, removing the German IPAs, only once. Result: immediately reported as a fake again and as a "stalker troll" in the AnI by Mai-Sachme. Dignity: N/A. Unlike he announced I would do, I have added Italian IPAs (sourced from Italian D.O.P. and Di.P.I. and according to Help:IPA for Italian) instead of removing any German IPA again as Bartleby08 did with Italian IPAs. Now it seems that none of them is removing the Italian IPAs, since from their point of view the important is the presence of the German IPAs. I have no other interest in this issue, but as I did with Bartleby the first time I am patrolling the pages to verify that no encyclopedic content is removed again. About the process against me, I hope that I will not be declared guilty without proofs again, both considering that the user I am accused to be was not blocked for the edits he did or for his behaviour and considering that I reverted Mai-Sachme's edits once only and the following edits were all positive contributions to this project. Even if I will be convicted and some IPs will be blocked, I would not care too much about it, because the only important thing to me is that those 2 vandals stop removing the Italian IPAs. And about them, they are know in the Italian project for being problematic users who have tried a lot of times imposing their tendentious points of view about South Tyrol: Bartleby08 was blocked for a month for source falsification ([1]), and Mai-Sachme's talk page is full of Italian sysops' reproofs ([2]). Please consider this too, getting rid of users who have a neutral viewpoint is the quickest way they have in order to be free to edit the articles where they want to impose their point of view, an Italian sysop has written it right in Mai-Sachme's talk page. Unluckily, some people from South Tyrol are separatist who do not like being Italian, not too many but at least a few. Sorry for writing so much and thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.104.26 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Regarding this, you are incorrect. You will find the account at User:GibsonSon27. The word "Son" should have been capitalized in the account name, but it seems to me that you could have easily found this account by doing a simple search, as I did. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tirgil34 and Egaplaicesp are the same sockmaster

Evidence:

Is it possible to merge the Egaplaicesp SPI into Tirgil34's SPI and tag Egaplaicesp's socks as belonging to Tirgil34? This would be very heplful. Krakkos (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Krakkos: This was discussed four times now, as I remember. I don't think we should waste more time on that. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Ahem, well, it wasn't I but some smelly sock. I do concur, though. Favonian (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Favonian: Haha, tricked me really. Thanks anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tamils

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamils. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of connected contributor template

This is more appropriate for here than the Talk:European Graduate School page. What do you think the purpose of the cc template is? That's a real question :) Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Since you are objecting my edit, why don't you start by explaining what you think is the purpose of that template? Vanjagenije (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I said at the article - to inform editors of the history of COI editing; you can click on the "contribs" link for each user/IP there and see what they did. I am not being tendentious - you have a clearly different notion, and I would like to understand what it is. For real! Thanks. Jytdog (talk)
Yes, I understand that. But I do not understand why would that be useful. What's a use of checking POV edits made 9-10 years ago, many of which were removed from the article years ago? Vanjagenije (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
one of the things that the folks who work on COI issues struggle with, is exactly this - understanding the longer-term patterns affecting articles. We just had a pretty extensive discussion at WT:COIN here about how to manage articles over the longer term. WP is here for the long term. The EGS article is actually a great example of how the subject of an article can put pressure on it for years. Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Yes, I see, you are right. I reverted my edit. But, isn't there some way to allow understanding that long-term pattern without such huge templates? The talk page looks very ugly. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thanks for that. I completely hear you on the ugly thing. I am not a coding person, but I wonder if there is a way to set up a "collapse" thing for the cc template like there is for the banners. That would do it. Do you know anything about how to do that, or who would be good to ask? Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Before I removed those IPs, I took a look at {{Connected contributor}} template to see if collapsing is supported, but I saw that it's not. I don't know much about writing templates, so you'd have to ask someone else. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will do - I hear your problem with the amount of space it takes up and will try to get a collapse-thing made. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI rename request

About a year a go an imposter created a hoax account at User:Homeontherange in order to edit disruptively. The account had been owned by someone else 8 years previously and had been granted the right to vanish however, after the former account was changed to a former user account, the previous Homeontherange account was not locked. This allowed the hoaxer to create a new account usurping the Homeontherange name several years later. The account was soon blocked and, due to the impersonation, the imposter's edits and user and talk pages were moved to User:Renamed Imposter Account 000001 and User talk:Renamed Imposter Account 000001. Given that the sockpuppet's edits and info has been moved (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Rename_and_lock_of_an_impostor_account) I'm wondering if you can rename the following SPI pages accordingly:

This is both to avoid wrongly attributing an SPI to an innocent party who was impersonated an to make the pages consistent with the renamed account. 76.65.207.36 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
76.65.207.36, is it possible that you are the original Homeontherange? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

About a month ago, you blocked 2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. Could I get you block the IP again, since its still being used for the same purpose. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the ring

Hi,Vanjagenije. I'm contacting you because I see you active at SPI; if there's a more appropriate course feel free to redirect my inquiry. I've blocked Albert20789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of Albert20009. Based on past interaction I'm thinking there may be further housekeeping necessary WRT notes or log updating on the sock master. I'd appreciate any instruction on how to proceed. Thanks for any help/advice you have. Tiderolls 23:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: The userpage of the sockpuppet should be appropriately tagged. I did that [31]. Except that, there is nothing to do. You can open a case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Albert20009 just for the record, but you don't have to. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Giubbotto sockpuppets

Hi Vanjagenije. I've noticed a few more disruptive possible User:Giubbotto non ortodosso alts, which I've added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso. These alts are being very disruptive. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP personal attacks

Some IP's have been causing issues at various Israel/Palestine related areas today. 64.30.135.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 45.48.150.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2001:8003:2430:b700:dd24:f4ee:b0bc:d494 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - you currently have declined an SPI on Malik Shabazz due to stale IP editing. The IP's in the SPI vary by location and ISP as do the above 3. Edit summaries today are not inconsistant with language Malik has used previously however they are a bit more extreme. I am concerned this may be a Joe Job given the timing of your decline of the SPI yesterday, however given that Malik *has* edited while logged out as an IP with insulting edit summaries. It may need a closer look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: What exactly makes you think that is Malik Shabazz? I don't understand the connection. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was unclear. I don't think it is, I find it suspicious the day after an SPI is closed citing stale IP editing that an IP pops up and makes similar edits in a related area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HankMoodyTZ SPI

Could I get you (or another clerk if your busy) to fast track the SPI into HankMoodyTZ a little. The case has been open and unaddressed for over a month now. There's been a CU request pending for three weeks. I suspect the case got deprioritized when it was removed from the list of cases on the SPI main page as a result of a bad faith page move. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, could you take a look at this IP account? There are only 10 contribs thus far, all made today, but in half the edit summaries, they self-identify as a "banned editor". As a admin who deals with a lot of socks, I figured I would bring this to your attention. Cheers - theWOLFchild 04:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - theWOLFchild 23:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

I've come across a curious situation. There appears to be (to me at least) a single person using multiple IP addresses (14 identified and counting, all on the same host network and from the same area, all editing the same pages), which on it's own I think is ok, but it appears they have posted comments to themselves posing as a different person, giving praise and support for their edits (which I don't think is ok). Some of these edits have been problematic.

They are also editing the various identified-IP talk-pages from different IP's, primarily removing Shared IP-tags as well as some comments from different addresses. These removals have been reverted, but in some cases they have come back and reverted again. Also, while going through the various talk pages and adding Share tags and 'welcome' templates, I've noted that several of these IP addesses (too many to be a coincidence) have been tied to previous sock investigations (albeit from several years ago). Many of the edits from these various IP addresses are first time and recent, indicative of a new user, but they are using advanced markup that only a very experienced editor would know.

If you feel this bears closer scrutiny, I can provide the IP addresses/ranges identified thus far, as well as diffs for the comments posing as a different user and the various reverts. Again, I'm asking you because of your experience administrating in this area and because you're one of the more helpful admins here. Thanks again. - theWOLFchild 00:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Isidora sekulic.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Isidora sekulic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Make Things Clear: Sockpuppets

I am user IP:24.205.12.180. Recently I have been blocked for being a sock of Isasid. I need an explainition by Sunday, April 10 or I might need to report this evidence-less ban to staff members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptMcDerpington (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated to Isaiasad. Mike V • Talk 18:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to report a sock puppet?

I have a feeling that User:HalloweenNight is back with a new account but am not sure how to report it... Firebrace (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebrace: Which account? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The account is User:ThiefOfBagdad. My suspicions were aroused by their activity at the Commons (where "HalloweenNight" is not blocked but has not been active since "ThiefOfBagdad" was created). Their general pattern of editing, uploads and talk page style are pretty much identical... Firebrace (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Firebrace: You should open a sockpuppet investigation on this case. Go to WP:SPI and follow the steps in the box titled "How to open an investigation". You should name Alvandria as the sockmaster and ThiefOfBagdad as suspected sockpuppet. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Firebrace: Just got this in my notifications and I'm completely baffled. How does uploading a new version of a picture somebody else once uploaded make me their sockpuppet? And if you notice, I do this a lot, not just with that person. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ThiefOfBagdad: You're a nuisance. Do NOT misuse the 'thank' feature to make a point. My edits at Jurong Bird Park are no concern of yours. Firebrace (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Firebrace: Why can't I thank you for the work you do too? I believe in giving and taking, and being nice. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral look

Please see if THIS has consensus to move.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the help with the SPI page. It got a little confusing on where to post. I appreciate the help. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balady citron

I noticed you semi protected the Balady citron indefinitely. All I see are three days of mild IP vandalism, and that is not enough reason to indef protect a page, IMHO. I'd recommend to change the semi protection to 2 weeks. Debresser (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: The disruption has been going on for years (Israeli vs. Palestinian fruit), see: [32][33][34][35][36]. But, yes, I guess you are right, it's not enough for indefinite protection. I am a little allergic to those nationalist fights. I'll change it to two weeks as you suggested. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I understand your allergy. I have quite a few articles on my watchlist that are related to the IP-conflict, and I see it a lot too. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MILES_TRAGER

Hi Vanjagenije- Thanks for your work on the above case. I wasn't sure if I should make the IP the master when its activity predates the named account. I missed that if it was in the SPI guidance (which I've recently suggested changes to). Re the IPs: Do we not block them in a case like this? Eric talk 12:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eric: Master should always be the oldest account. Most IPs are dynamic, so we block them only when they are engaged in ongoing disruption. None of those IPs have been active in the last 3-4 days, so there is great chance they were re-assigned to different person in the meantime. That is why we don't block them. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure, and wanted to report the IP activity too, as he was jumping from IP to IP and logging in/out. Eric talk 15:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eric: Yes, you should report IP socking. Even if we can't block the IP, it is useful to have it listed for future investigations. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The kyle 3

Hi Vanjagenije. I see you closed the above SPI case, but I don't think I made it clear enough that by editing with those sockpuppets, he effectively evaded and blatantly broke his ARBPIA topic ban. Isn't it customary to indef block for that? I wouldn't have bothered filing the SPI otherwise, as creating a new account and abandoning an old one is not sockpuppetry.

Additionally, a look at the abusive nature of his contributions also shows that he was clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, either. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deonis_2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deonis_2012

Hi Vanjagenije can you check this case.Alhanuty (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC) i have posted new evidence.Alhanuty (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC) i have posted new evidence.Alhanuty (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case regarding your actions

Hi Vanjagenije, this is just a quick notice that an editor has filed a Request for Arbitration against you. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Improper Administration by Vanjagenije. For the Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 23:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Looks like Chesnaught666 has also been globally locked. Thank you sir. :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 08:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

Hi Vanjagenije; this message is informing you that a recent Request for Arbitration that you were a party to (Improper Administration by Vanjagenije) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia Concerns. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manually?

Hello Vanja, hope you're doing fine. :-) I was wondering, could you perhaps deal with this manually for a sec? Mughal Lohar/Jinhoppan has made another account some days ago, named WindWalk5555. I've added him to the existing SPI SPI case but that case is on hold for like 1,5 month right now, so no one knows when this is gonna be dealt with. The last CU sweep was done before he made this new account as well. He will disrupt many more pages if this new sock account doesn't get dealt with manually. Could you do something? I know its not ideal as there might be another washlist of sleepers out there, but this is the one thats active atm. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: I'll take a look when I find some time. Bbb23 is now back, so I suppose the case will be dealt with soon. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Christians Schools page deleted

Instead of deleting the entire page. Why didn't you just delete the "copyrighted" content. (I put 'copyrighted' in quotes because I have permission to use the content) Please don't be lazy in the future. Instead, collaborate with the author to come to a consensus. Please reconsider your deletion. Ausrichter (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ausrichter: Over 90% of the article content was copied from external sources. No part of that was in quotes. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Baghel

Hello, I am new on Wikipedia and I want to create a page title Mohit Baghel which has been previously deleted by you. Can I create this page.please help me Paras7674 (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paras7674: The article was deleted after the consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohit Baghel. Participating editors expressed opinion that the person is not WP:NOTABLE enough. If you want to crete the article again, you have to cite some reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. I also strongly recommend that you create it in the WP:Drafts namespace, and submit it to the WP:AFC process. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deonis 2012

he is back under an armenian persona,need your help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deonis_2012

Thanks!

Thanks for tagging this. I totally forgot! Sorry for the extra work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Rural support program network" sockpuppetting

Hello,

I noticed you indef blocked Capital contributor 101 as a WP:DUCK sockpuppet of Rural Support Programme Network. Well, it seems like he admitted to socking but in good faith. The user probably created a new account instead of asking for a rename when the first username triggered warnings.

I have not looked carefully to the history behind the first account but an indef block seems a bit harsh to me. I mean, it is not like there is an history of edit warring or votestacking. May I suggest to shorten the block to a week or so (or even lift it entirely with a stern warning)? TigraanClick here to contact me 08:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Somehow I thought he created the new account before the block of the original (I should have checked timestamps). Sorry for bothering you! TigraanClick here to contact me 14:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:New Democratic Party Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New Democratic Party Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMYSPACE (User:Iching4096)

Greetings! In the end of March, you closed a sockpuppet investigation about the user User:Iching4096. I am a bit worried now, since another problem might have emerged. Indeed, I am concerned that he might be using his user page as his personal space to bring forth his personally produced original research in regards to the China-related articles. For example, in the Yin and yang article, he has introduced a massive quantity of WP:OR, directly copied from his own user Page.[38][39] He has now inserted the material twice, even though I already reverted the material once before and explained that it cannot be implemented as such, but it'd need to be sourced the material.

Could you please take a look at his User Page? I am not asking you to delve into the changes at the specific article; I referred to it in order to provide mere context. For me, however, the use of his very user Page seems like a violation against WP:NOTMYSPACE. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: The user page was moved to User:Iching4096/Sandbox2 by an admin. What exactly do you want me to do? I don't think that page is in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE since the content is related to Wikipedia. WP:Original research is problem, but — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanjagenije (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanjagenije. I think the warning you gave him would be enough for now[40]. Indeed, he might be new to Wikipedia, and I hope he will move from inserting original research to providing reliably sourced content to the articles, henceforth helping to improve our encyclopedia. Not just fancy words, but once an editor gets a grip of our core policies, I believe they can turn into rather productive editors (sure, a good command of English is a must here)- The learning curve here is rather steep. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)


im suspect of some crime ???

I'm committing a crime ???

please clean to me

but should delete my hard worked table ?

i put you delete, i put you delete, i put you delete...

need to stop this cycle.

my table is correct no mistakes based on Pure Tao Theory.

there is no source on internet what i can do

--Iching4096 (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iching4096: Fortunately, we do not investigate crimes here in Wikipedia. There are other institutions for that. But, you have to stop inserting your WP:original research into articles. You were warned about that already, but you have continued to insert large amounts of material that is completely WP:unsourced into the articles like Chinese astrology, Yin and yang and Eight Immortals. Everything that you add to an article has to be properly WP:referenced to WP:reliable sources. Adding unsourced material is considered disruptive and may result in WP:block. I agree with you that we "need to stop this cycle". The cycle can be stopped in two ways: either you stop inserting unsourced material into articles, or we block you. It's up to you. You ask me "there is no source on internet what i can do". What you can do is to find other sources like books and magazines, or to give up inserting that kind of information into articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


the problem is that there is no touchable kind of material still on these things I put why this comes straight from my understanding discernment pure yang understanding 3 line han xiang zi philosopher

" thunder rise up from ground " ( note : total crazy my brother )

everyone know born on clouds move down to ground

wood wind tree lake water huge mess too

im trying to order in understandings but you insists on continuing with his madness then continues good luck

and not meddle in my user page why I do not put myself in user page of anyone

I do not I copy, I was I did all that there is on my page button on my keyboard button I am the original creator of all that I have here not copy from anyone

You can keep its policy that to me does not matter at all so I'm science and religion

be open to new not closed on past

21 century now

Fu Xi Huangdi not also had no written sources wrote of own understanding like im now

where in our planet earth there is this thunder rising from the soil ? where is the source of it ? unsourced too

not target more on my page are my ideas if they are right or wrong does not matter maybe in future will understand, I am entitled to have my own ideas, it is a violation of human rights can even stop meddle in its articles but not meddle in my space NOTMYSPACE

until the page of Yang Chengfu you want to mess with that in pt.wik has a hell of a huge page of Liu Jun Yu It is that I just put a brief summary of him formation longmen pai, jinshan pai, kun lun chien shan

that's why no one join, one more reason for anyone to join this religion because of these natural "crazys"

--Iching4096 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iching4096: Do you translate your words with Google Translate? I don't understand a word. You know, competence is required in order to edit Wikipedia. Maybe you should switch to your language version of Wikipedia, it seams to me that your English is not good enough to communicate with other users. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thunder Wood ???

it is not electricity energy ??? Metal, my part

this thunder is total crazy

im not understanding what you say too, thunder wood under riser what is this language ?

zang fu zodiac is not 12 ?

baxian bagua bahui is not 8 ?

i only do the links

I put on my translater here and it's all ok, only you no understand

it not need source on site or book to understand, until our south american natire chieftain know thunder born on metal cloud, on the sky, above, hands, move down to the ground, are you understanding ?

Chinese Astrology there is a warning since April 2009 asking sources and only my edits is deleted.

--Iching4096 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppet

Based on the types of edits and tone of writing, it would appear that the blocked user Albanian Historian is back under a different name (User:Pettan92) and is again creating WP:OR and WP:Coatrack articles such as The Destruction of Catholic Churches in the Balkans, Albanian-Montenegrin Conflicts and Persecution of Catholic Albanians by Tsar Stefan Dušan. Do check it out. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now said user is trying to remove the above message from your talk. Only digging themselves a deeper hole, I'm afraid. 23 editor (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed. Vanja, could you please G5 the new articles? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider the "contributions" of User:Albertgjokaj, which were made following Albanian Historian's initial outing as a sockpuppet. 23 editor (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it a little suspicious that User:Resnjari resumed editing only a day after Pettan92's ban. Maybe there's something to it, maybe not. Just an observation. 23 editor (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. Stumbled across this interesting comment about me. If someone has any "suspicions" about me please air them in the appropriate forums and also to my talkpage. No beating around the bush or in the shadows. Wikipedia has rules about editors privacy and accusations toward a editor of the sort. But since there are those who want to know, I am from Australia and my IP address is as such. I am more than happy to have it checked by a administrator(s) that does not have Balkan heritage against any other "suspected" accounts or "suspicions" of others. You know, its best that way for neutrality purposes and from now on will keep an eye out for such discussions that might be had about me. My account dates back all the way to 2008 and i am highly against sock activity as its counter-productive. Just so things are clear to everyone, i am very fond of my account and intend on staying around Wikipedia a very long time unlike most Albanian editors. By the way, i do edit extensively on Albanian Wikipedia too, so sometimes i go absent here while there is activity over there and vice versa (depending on what takes my interest at a various points in time). You can check my account over there too. Ask the administrators over there about me as well while all are at it. Like i said i intend to stay on English Wiki and Albanian Wiki. Best regards everyone!Resnjari (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EGS for the zillionth time

I guess it will take another RfC to change the accreditation section. I am not going to launch a new one until the one you launched is closed formally or if you will allow that there was no consensus and we just archive it (per WP:CLOSE not every discussion actually needs a formal close... and i think "no consensus" is the pretty clear outcome.....) What do you think? i just want to put this to bed already. the current content really does need to be fixed. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc

Vanjagenije can you kindly evaluate this case and close it out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc? Fifteen days is a long time to wait. I have to say that my experience at Wikipedia has been very disappointing. This one, insecure member, has been stalking me since the day I signed on and dragging me into one administrative hearing after another with nothing more than innuendo that I might be the reincarnation of a problem member (there have been no problems or controversies during my membership). I've documented it and I've stayed away from the guy. All of the cases were dismissed, but I guess the way it works is that you keep it up until you find an admin that will finally ban a member. I'm a professional and was willing to make contributions here, but I have no interest in this pettiness.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your intervention at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-psyc

This intervention by yourself is unfair. My response which you have deemed "Content dispute, not about sockpuppetry." is a line by line rebuttal of the claims made by Wiki-psyc under the heading "Comment from the accused". In my view, my response does contain some elements about the sockpuppetry and I defend myself against Wiki-psyc's accusations against me. In my response, I counter Wiki-psycs claim that his "work on Wikipedia is sound" and, for example, "Penbat's obsessive bullying of everyone who doesn't agree with him", "stalking" and "witch-hunting" and my "bruised ego".

It is unbalanced to apply "Content dispute, not about sockpuppetry." to my response. Wiki-psyc's original "Comment from the accused." text says almost nothing about the sockpuppet accusations and is basically just an attack on myself. To be fair you should apply "Content dispute, not about sockpuppetry" to Wiki-psyc's text as well or not at all. I also feel uneasy that you are dealing with this investigation when you were involved in the previous Wiki-psyc investigation and feel that a different SPI clerk should be looking at this one. --Penbat (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-psyc has still not explained how he could possibly start editing on Wikipedia hitting the ground running as if he had been editing for years. --Penbat (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Chengfu article.

Dear Sir: Why have you removed the Chinese martial arts tag from this article? This is a widely recognized and very famous martial artist. If there's an article that deserves this tag, this is one of those. Bruno talk 17:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Panicpgh: Hi! The purpose of such templates like {{Chinese martial arts}} (we call them WP:Navboxes) is to help readers to navigate between articles. The template contains links that help readers to find more similar articles. Therefore, the template should only be used in articles that are linked from the template (see: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). The Yang Chengfu article is not linked from {{Chinese martial arts}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you. Bruno talk 19:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Banshee

Hello there. I'm would like to resolve this bizarre sock puppeting situation. I'm not sure what happened with this page in the past but I created this account, yesterday, to write and submit this original article on this subject. which you can view here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_lone2004/sandbox Blank Banshee is a well known member of the electronic music community, my only thoughts are that he has some fans with bad judgement.Michael lone2004 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Clerk Trainees

Do you know when (or if) the current clerks will be starting a training session? There are some requests at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Thanks! — Music1201 talk 04:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Music1201: Training is ongoing since December 2015 and that training should be over in few days. I'm not sure when we'll be having next training, but I don't expect it soon. Previous training (before the current one) started in January 2015. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Faisaly FC (Harmah) squad listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al-Faisaly FC (Harmah) squad. Since you had some involvement with the Al-Faisaly FC (Harmah) squad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imambaras of Lucknow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qasim. 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) 09:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:COI

Possible WP:COI over at Nataša Kandić, where a Belgrade IP is removing certain info from the article (WP:IDONTLIKE). Thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping question

Hi Vanja- You {{ping}}'d me earlier, but I received no notification. I used {{reply_to}} in my reply. Did you receive one? Just curious if there might be an issue with the system. I'll watch here. Thanks. Eric talk 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Eric: Yes, I did receive the notification. And, yes, there are constant issues with the notifications system. Sometimes it doesn't work for no apparent reason. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanja- I would like to edit the instructions in the hidden box "How to open an investigation" on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations, but I can't see how to. Can you give me any pointers? I posted my suggestions here a couple weeks ago, but never got any input. Thanks in advance. Eric talk 18:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric: Sorry, I forgot to answer sooner. Since nobody has objected to your proposal, I guess you are free to make that edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanja- No problem, I know you're busy. But the issue is that I cannot see how to edit that section. I see no "edit" link for the section, and when I go to edit the whole page, that section's text is not in the code. Could it be something to do with permissions? Eric talk 12:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric: It is wp:transcluded (with this code: {{/SPI/header}} at the top of the page). You can edit it here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/header. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanja! I don't have rights to edit there, so I posted an edit request. Eric talk 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric: Yeas, I see. It is template protected. I'll make the edit for you. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Recall of MPs Act 2015

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Recall of MPs Act 2015. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter changed

You may have noticed that a number of your userpages are presently in Category:Fix. This is because that category is used temporarily to track deprecated usage of a certain parameter.

On User:Vanjagenije/Meni please replace the 1 instances of "icon_nr" by "sortkey", and your pages will disappear from that tracking category and template usage will be optimized. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Debresser (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Nextiva

User:MikeBVIse has asked for a deletion review of Nextiva. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok

So I put it into the wrong location [41], but surely in WP:AGF it doesnt take you a moment to put in the right place, which I cannot see if you have or not JarrahTree 09:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: That was not the first time, see [42]. You were already told no to edit the archive. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair call - I dont go into the checkuser area enough to remember exact details - it doesnt take you a minute to put it in the right place either JarrahTree 09:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this is as not as long as last wait either, it is a small example of the sock coming back and testing the water so to speak, I suspect JarrahTree 09:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for fixing up the entry - appreciated JarrahTree 09:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JarrahTree: Next time you want to open an SPI, please go to WP:SPI and follow steps described at "How to open an investigation". The way you did it was wrong, and the page was missing the {{SPI case status}} template. Without that template, the case is not listed at the main WP:SPI list, and nobody knows that it is filed. I saw you opened the case, so I fixed it, but without that the case would be hidden. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
appreciate the advice - thanks JarrahTree 09:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

multiple-account user

@Vanjagenije: hello, i'm writing to you about a multiple-account user you blocked months ago who started over creating new fakes.

here's a list of a few of his previous accounts:

list
* 84101e40247 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

i didn't find all the fakes you blocked but you'll be able to check them all; i'm sure that the IP addresses he used before and uses now begin at least in some cases by one or more among 95, 87, 82, 80 and 79.

here's a list of a few of his new accounts:

List
* Louisdertuman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

this user continues creating throwaway accounts to delude others, so that he feels safe when he makes his edits: he creates a new account with a senseless name, makes his edit which as you can see consists of removing or corrupting phonetic transcriptions, then he abandons the account and creates another one when he moves to another page or comes back to an already edited page.

i hope that my report was helpful both for the vandalic nature of his edits and for the improper use of his multiple accounts, such a user should be kept an eye on and kept from going on with such disruptive edits that should be all reverted, he's just damaging the encyclopedia by behaving like this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a03:f480:1:3::66 (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by multiple-account user you blocked? I did not block any of these. Why do you think it has anything to do with me? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More info provided

Hi there! I have responded to your request for more information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WCVB98swell, but I am unclear whether I am also supposed to change the status of the investigation to reflect my submission of additional evidence, or whether someone else is supposed to do that. Thanks, Ibadibam (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibadibam: No, you are not allowed to change the status. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. What is the usual procedure, in that case? Wait for someone to notice that a response has been posted to the request for information? Notify the requester (which I guess is what I've done)? Something else? Ibadibam (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to notify (or just ping) the requester (clerk). Anyway, I usually watch the page when I request more info, so even that is not needed. It's just that I don't have enough time to look at it now. It late here in Europe . Vanjagenije (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks for you patience with my confusion. Ibadibam (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPs not really sockpuppets

Hi, Vanjagenije,

I really appreciate your merging everything here, but I think the case can be closed. The problem isn't sockpuppetry at all—it's just all the citation spam. There is no evidence that he was deliberately jumping IPs to hide his activities. I took the case to ANI, where there was the suggestion to implement an edit filter. None of these venues seemed to be an appropriate place to make a more thorough record, so I consolidated everything here; and have requested an edit filter.

All this is to say that I think the SPI can be closed, but I know very little about procedures at SPI. Could you please advise? Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diya W.F.C.

Hi, I wanted to know why Diya W.F.C. page was deleted. The club is the oldest women's football club (2003) in Pakistan and one that has produced multiple international players for the country. Please let me know if I can recreated it with references, thanks Rzafar (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rzafar: The article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, so it was speedily deleted under G5 criteria. Banned users are not allowed to create articles. Other users (including you) are free to re-create the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rzafar (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deonis 2012

i provided all the evidences needed for an SPI on that armenian user who is deonis 2012,i am very familiar with him its him running that account..Alhanuty (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting sourced information

This is a warning. Stop deleting sourced data concerning the topic of Kosovo. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Yatzhek: The fact that some information is "sourced" doesn't mean that it has to be in the article. You should discuss your addition on that article's talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There it is: Talk:Kosovo#Slavic_name Yatzhek (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Kingdom of Hungary

There are no sources for the other languages spoken, so please do not tell me that a source is needed to add the Polish language when there are no sources for the other languages as well. By that logic the other languages listed must have sources too. They don't. So why do they get to stay but Polish language must be removed? That makes no sense. Either all the languages listed on the "other languages" section need a source, or Poland must stay, or the whole section must be removed since there is not a single source for any of the languages.

Also, on a historical note, Poland and Hungary have had very close ties during the long history of Central Europe, for example the Congress of Visegrád summits around the same time as the kingdom. There was no reason for you to remove Polish from the list of other languages spoken because a "source was needed" even though the rest of the languages listed also have no source(s). Thank you. 69.119.175.240 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)69.119.175.240[reply]

According to Wikipedia's policy (WP:V), "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". Other languages have not been challenged (yet), but the inclusion of Polish was challenged by several Wikipedia users, so the source is needed. The same source also says that "any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". So, what I did is perfectly in line with our policy. According to our longstanding WP:BRD system, you should go to the article talk page and establish consensus with other users on the issue. Re-inserting the same controversial material without discussing it on the talk page is considered WP:Edit war and is not allowed. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, you can't use other Wikipedia articles as source (see: WP:CIRCULAR), as you've done here. Our policies do not allow that. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iching4096 is back?

Hi there, Vanjagenije! Remember our friend Iching4096 who got just blocked recently? Does the following content seem familiar: a recently created article page, and the User Page, displaying the same ~ ( 69 ) ~ sign that was flooded in Iching4096's Talk Page. Oh, and the sandbox tells it all[43]. ;-)

I guess the article could go with speedy-delete, but I have no experience of the procedure. Is that something you can do straight away? What do you think...? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Vanjagenije. I thought to inform you directly since you handled the last SPI case with the editor in question, and hence you are already familiar with the history. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the problem is that his user Talk Page would have served as the evidence, but it is no longer available because of his block (his User Page was deleted). That's why it'd be hard to show any similarities in the SPI evidence section. Could you please have a look? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayaguru-Shishya: It's OK. You don't need to present evidence if it's deleted. Just open an investigation. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done![44] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ordathspidotherium

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I deprodded *"Ordathspidotherium" - upon investigation it appears to be a misspelling of Orthaspidotherium, which I have now corrected. However, it appears there is a large number of low-quality similar articles created by User:DinoLover4321. Not sure what the best thing to do would be with those, though some kind of automated cleanup may be called for. Intelligentsium 21:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One or several files

Dear Vanja,

could you change this file according to this source? Thanks in advance. Yours, -----21:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) (seems that there are some missing files of 'Orden viteškog mača') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.178.240 (talk)

Yes, but it seams to me that those are two different medals. The one in your source is the "Defense and Security Medal of Merit" (Medalja za zasluge u oblastima odbrane i bezbednosti) of FR Yugoslavia , while the file depicts the "Medal for Military Virtues" (Medalja za vojne zasluge) of SFR Yugoslavia (see here). The problem seams to be that someone included the image of the second one into this article to depict the first one. So, we need a new file, not to change the existing file. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your kind unblock.

You will find that letting the user exercise self control is better than acting like a secret police or a military dictator. By unblocking me, you made Wikipedia more pleasant to me. In return, I did not edit for several days, not because I could not, but because I wanted to pay back the favor to you. I did not want to edit anything that would bring shame to you. I will start to edit again but will not edit anything to lose your trust. Please keep this in mind and offer such kindness to others. You are the rare exception in Wikipedia.

Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jerusalem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jerusalem. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filo500X

Hi yesterday you gave warning to Filo500X but he continue with wrong dumb edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Filo500X, please BAN him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Svk fan (talk • contribs) 10:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you gave 36hours ban to Filo500X but he continue with wrong dumb edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Filo500X, please BAN him permanently— Preceding unsigned comment added by Svk fan (talk • contribs) 13:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hello, Vanjagenije. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Oatitonimly (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP / AfC

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italians

Your edit is wrong, that only applies for the lead image Walnut77 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Niš Airport logo 2014.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Niš Airport logo 2014.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brown (outfielder)

Hi. You removed the speedy deletion tag I placed on the article Steve Brown (outfielder) with the comment "Source text is freely licensed." However, the source was licensed under a "GNU Free Documentation License." According to Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, a GNU-only license is not compatible with Wikipedia, and so as I understand it this source may not be freely copied to Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog: Seams that you are right. I took a look at WP:COMPLIC where it says that "GFDL and CC BY" is OK, but now I realize that it must be both GFDL and CC BY. I am going to delete the page. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #15941

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #15941 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Coffee (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

ArielFernandezDr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Time: Jun 18, 2016 00:25:37

Message: Decision on this is up to you, since you're more familiar with the case.

Notes:

  • If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
  • Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: I don't know how the decision can be "up to me" when I don't even know what he wrote in the unblock request. This account is one in the long line of accounts promoting Dr Ariel Fernandez and his work (some of the more recent are: Ariel Fernandez Ph D (talk · contribs) and Ariel Fernandez S (talk · contribs)). This was the user page of Ariel Fernandez S, and this was the one of Ariel Fernandez Ph D, in both they claim to be Dr Ariel Fernandez, expert "in statistical physics and biotechnology". This new account (ArielFernandezDr) made one edit in which they claim to be Ariel Fernandez and promote their book titled "Physics at the Biomolecular Interface". I though this was the WP:DUCK case, so I blocked them. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you had access to UTRS, but as you don't I'll just press forward. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

INQUIRY

Hello Please explain why do you keep on deleting things on our page? I have one article about Sergo Grigorian and his collection. You wrote you have deleted it because it is a 100% copy of MY article! Secondly, I downloaded a photo last month, now it has been deleted as well! Why?? RAG-posters (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please explain why have my page been deleted. I have a username and account which i used to create a page about Sergo Grigorian an art collector. Everything been ok, then I add an image to the page and you delete my page, I no longer have that article as mine and the image of SG disappeared. Plus i got no email notifications about all these changes. What am i doing wrong?

Thank youRAG-posters (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I am still confused. I was the one who wrote that article, nobody was copying anything, i was editing from my user page, like adding photos... Do i understand it right, that now i do not "own" that article and anybody can edit it by accessing this page Sergo Grigorian only? RAG-posters (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please advise, i wanted to create the same page but in Russian. How do i do this now? RAG-posters (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RAG-posters: In Wikipedia, nobody "owns" articles (see: WP:OWN). Every article can be edited by anybody, no mater who created it. That is the whole point of Wikipedia: we are building an encyclopedia together, we work on articles together. I said that you created two pages: one is the Sergo Grigorian article, and the other one was your user page (User:RAG-posters), and those two pages were identical. We do not need two identical pages. And also, user pages should be used to post some information about yourself (if you like so), and that is the reason I deleted your user page. If you want to create the article in Russian, you should go to Russian Wikipedia (ru.wikipedia.org). Every language version of Wikipedia is independent of each other. Every language version has its own rules and policies. This is English Wikipedia, and I only work in English Wikipedia, I have no experience with Russian Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hi - a few weeks ago you dealt with a sockpuppet investigation I raised (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roo996/Archive). It looks like another sockpuppet has popped up (User:Yopes123456) - but I am unsure how to raise another investigation once the original one has been deal with. OGLV (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OGLV: The same way you did it the first time. Just go to WP:SPI and follow the steps at "How to open an investigation". Vanjagenije (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning template

Vanja, where is the template you use to warn a named account about editing without logging in? I keep forgetting the name of it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: {{uw-login}} This one? I use it via Twinkle. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Vanjagenije (talk)

I've activated your account. Thank you for volunteering.--v/r - TP 02:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for changing username

Hi, thanks for your unblock recently! I'm happy that I'm allowed to edit Wikipedia again. But this original username does not represents my real name so I want to change it to Thoriq Rahmat. But it was the username of my another sock account, Thoriq rahmat so can you please delete my userpage because it is allowed to do that but I can't add -{db-user}- tempelate because now it's blocked and now I'm not using that account anymore. Thanks! Thoriq Ahmad Rahmat (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thoriq Ahmad Rahmat: You cannot rename your account yourself. You have to make a request at WP:CHU/S, but you can't change your username to a name that is already taken (even if it was taken by you). Vanjagenije (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hi there, you recently blocked User:Tripleheader along with others after a sock investigation. I see that this user has just been activated and created a new page basically identical to the one Tripleheader created. Mattlore (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(tps)  Confirmed and blocked -  No sleepers immediately visible. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response DoRD and sorry to bother your talk page Vanjagenije! Mattlore (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is another version of this user causing havoc at User:Cricketgalore. Mattlore (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ohnoitsjamie

Hello, Would you be willing to reconsider the sockpuppetry case? I can show evidence they are exhibiting the same behavior and had abusively used the multiple accounts.

Ohnoitsjamie makes bulk reversions. Topics: High Schools, U.S. politics inactive 23-4h (times of inactivity are in Pacific Time)

Bongwarrior makes bulk reversions. Topics: Mainstream music, major league football (U.S.), some hockey, Apollo 11, Beer, Cheetah, Bald eagle

Meters makes bulk reversions. Topics: High Schools, Canada inactive 1-4h

Bahooka makes bulk reversions. Topics: Schools, cars, California, religion

Urbanoc focuses on reversions. Topics: motorsport, mostly Renault

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi makes bulk reversions. Topics: British history and geography

Accounts are inactive at the same hours and use the exact same style of edit summaries. In light of the evidence it would be best to receive IP confirmation. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Altanner1991: No actually, they are inactive in totally different hours (see: [45], [46], [47], [48], etc.). The evidence you have provided is very week and circumstantial. Most of those editors are administrators who naturally make "bulk reversions", that is no evidence of sockpuppetry. And, by the way, only the WP:Arbitration committee is allowed to make technical sockpuppet investigations against administrators. So, even if they were sockpuppets, the SPI team wouldn't be able to help. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? I am accused of being a sock of such illustrious Wikipedians as User:Ohnoitsjamie and User:Bongwarrior? As deeply honoured as I am by this I feel I must decline this nomination as I am unworthy of such adulation. Seriously though, not being an admin I don't have access to the tools for bulk reversions. In fact, I don't even use automated edit tools. Aside from a few recent Twinkle AFD nominations (one of which bit me when Foundation modifications had a side effect of temporarily breaking Twinkle)I do everything manually. Meters (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I missed this. Next time Ohnoitsjamie pops over for a cup of tea, I'll have to borrow his laptop... again Muffled Pocketed 13:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Klea Pineda

Hi, you declined db-g4 on this, but she was included in the nomination in WP:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sagra - is that not sufficient grounds? Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OnionRing: Hmm... Seams that yo are right, the article was originally deleted as a result of WP:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sagra ([49]). I reviewed the article again, and it seams that it still suffers the same issues it was originally deleted for. I'm going to deleted it. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Thoughts on the typically Balkan Novak Djokovic and Branimir Štulić ethnic disputes ? 23 editor (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Muhammad Tantray

Why Shoaib Muhammad Tantray page was deleted? He is a famous photographer and blogger of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. He is a new youth icon and has huge following base on social media. Allow this page to be available on wikipedia, or i will create one. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolan98378 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolan98378: The article was deleted in accordance wit the WP:A7 criteria for speedy deletion. It had no indication of the importance of the subject. Being a photographer, even a popular one, is not enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has certain inclusion criteria (see: WP:NOTABILITY). By the way, how did you know about the article? Are you part of some organized group whose goal is to promote Tantray? You should know that WP:meatpuppetry and wp:canvassing is not allowed here. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for deleting the pages I had tagged after a move 331dot (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why did you blocked me? I put first two sources, later another source. We have three sources from three different countries and languages.--Suzichi (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Suzichi: As explained on your talk page, I blocked you for WP:edit warring. Edit warring has nothing to do with sources. It is not allowed to edit war regardless of whether you have sources or not. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this [50]?... But you could assess whether my contribution vandalism or not. Now I can not edit the article because someone blocked my account, if I put text with sources. --Suzichi (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzichi: Again, you were not blocked for vandalism, you were blocked for edit-warring. Edit warring is totally different from vandalism. You can edit the article as both your block and page protection have expired. But, please, do not continue to edit-war. You should follow the normal WP:BRD cycle and discuss the issue on the article talk page with other editors and try to reach consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Objašnjenje

Pošto razumeš srpski, napisaću na tom jeziku. Blokirao si samo mene, iako je i drugi korisnik više od tri puta vraćao izmene, njemu si uputio samo opomenu. U redu, izdržao sam blokadu i sve OK (iako nisam mogao da uređujem do danas u 13:03, a istekla blokada juče oko 19 sati). Ali isti taj korisnik danas opet po starom [51], i pored mog ljubaznog objašnjenja [52]. Dakle, jasna je nečija namera da nacionalističkim ispadom nagrdi taj članak. Neću više vraćati, poštujem ovu vikipediju, ali apelujem da se nešto preduzme i dotični korisnik sankcioniše ili opomene. Takođe, zamolio bih da se članak Novak Djokovic zaštiti, po ugledu na — Roger Federer i Rafael Nadal. Unapred hvala i sve najbolje.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soundwaweserb: The other user was not blocked at the first time because that was his first incident of the kind, and he was not warned about the risk of being blocked. Since he continued to edit-war, I blocked him now. On the other hand, you were warned several times against edit-warring, and you were even blocked in the past for it, so you know you shouldn't be doing that. And, yes, the Novak Djokovic has been indefinitely wp:semi-protected since the last year, the same way Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal article are. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ali sad trenutno članak nije uopšte zaštićen i mogu da uređuju i IP adrese. Pozdrav.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanja, korisnik i pored tvog dobronamernog upozorenja, očigledno nema nameru da prestane sa nekonstruktivnim izmenama [53]. Ako takvi pojedinci nastave da sprovode svoju političku i nacionalističku agendu, onda ovde više nema smisla da se radi.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax/vandalism

Hi, I saw you removed my speedy from CK Nayudu Asim Abdi, I am happy to list it as an AfD if you think that's more suitable, but as I noted on the talk page I used the Hoax criteria because all of the information except the name and birthplace were stolen from the bio of a real person, Atif Aslam (that article does have verifiable references), down to the website link. So it appears to be a hoax or identity theft attempt. Do you think an AfD would be better? JamesG5 (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesG5: It is a hoax, you are right, but you have used the {{speedy deletion-vandalism}} tag which is for vandalism, not for hoaxes. You should use {{db-hoax}}. I checked the article, saw that it is not vandalism, and declined the request. I didn't check whether it is a hoax because I didn't know that was the problem. Yes, it should be speedied. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, my bad. Since WP:G3 covers both I just used the main curation tag & didn't update to reflect hoax, my fault. I should've done that as well as including the Talk page note explaining it. Re-speedied with corrected tag, thanks. JamesG5 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I take your point. I actually made a conscious decision that there was little or no risk, as I believe that he already knows about it, but I accept that there is no point in giving it publicity. I have changed it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

84101e40247 SPI

hi Vanjagenije, i'm sorry for having disturbed you last week, i messed up because you weren't the person i'd addressed (DoRD) and then i wanted to delete my message. now i've opened the case with a registered account (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/84101e40247) but for some reason it doesn't appear in the SPI list. i'm addressing you this time because i've seen that you're one of the most active admins in that page and DoRD is busy, so i hope you'll be able to help me. thank you in advance Vanjagenije. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:F480:1:3:0:0:0:66 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GDeChirico: When you wand to open a SPI, you should do it in one of those two ways: (a) You go to WP:SPI and follow steps described in the box titled "How to open an investigation", or (b) You install wp:Twinkle and do it with a single click. You obviously did not do any of those, so the page you made is totally malformed. It is missing essential templates. We have a bot that search for open SPI cases (it looks for those templates) and then adds them to the main SPI list. I'll have to fix the page. Please, do it the right way next time. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help and advice! i'll do it in the right way next time. 2A03:F480:1:3:0:0:0:66 (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that you have an account, why do you make logged out edits? Are you sockpuppeting yourself? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, i've just used here the same appearance i'd used before, and i'm using the new account to write in the case page, but if you're telling me that i'm required to use the account to write here and elsewhere too i will, no problems. 2A03:F480:1:3:0:0:0:66 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to properly declare the connection between multiple accounts/IPs you are using. You can do it by putting a comment on your account's user page explaining that you make logged-out edits. It is important to make it clear that the account and IP are the same person. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i've written in the case page that i've been using this IP when unlogged and i've written in my IP talk page that my account is GDeChirico, yesterday. JamesBWatson made a checkuser request for the case, may you endorse it please? 2A03:F480:1:3:0:0:0:66 (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25

Requesting urgent attention as it goes stale in just one day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: Goes stale, what? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SPI, his last sock was blocked on 4 April 2016, 3 July 2016 is the 90th day after that. According to my knowledge, CheckUser can only see data 90 days back. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: It's not important when the account was blocked, but when it has edited. With every edit, technical data is recorded with the system. That data is kept for 90 days. I guess you are talking about MBlaze Lightning. That account made it's last edit 30 days ago, so it will be stale in 60 days. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, made a mistake there but i think we have a good enough evidence there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

A user going by Szm007 is adding completely irrelevant flags and images to a variety of articles. Definitely needs admin attention. 23 editor (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That user is already blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drunkenpeter99

I just thought I'd point out that it is now 25 days since you asked TVBuff90 to make assurances and, despite making 258 edits since then, he has not done so. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I'm not causing any more trouble. --TVBuff90 (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic content

Hi, Vanja. A user has created an article titled List of war criminals in Kosovo 1999. The content is extremely problematic for obvious WP:BLP reasons. Do check it out. 23 editor (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, I would think. But who am I to tell an admin what to do? Proceed at your own discretion. 23 editor (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock

Could I get you to reinstate the block against 2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as it's still being used by SupernovaeIA (talk · contribs) to evade their block? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdification

That's it, I blocked User:ILoveMashiroShiina earlier this year, as I've been reverting him now for misleading edit summaries, repeated copyvio, blanking well-sourced text, etc, I won't block but take him to ANI. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanjagenije/Archive_13&oldid=1146694371"