User talk:DoRD/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

What the heck?

What the heck, DoRD? The malicious user Huon says that you've convicted me of sock puppetry. I have not done ANYTHING wrong, nothing wrong at all! Whoever "Glorious Japan Forever" is, he is a vandal hooligan and he may be using sock puppets, but I'm certainly not one of them! I've never written a vandalising article in my life! Best wishes, Sir Mycroft Holmes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Mycroft Holmes (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not convicted you of anything. I have shown that all three accounts are using what appears to be the same computer from the same location. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Where is my location? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.12.31 (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I should think that Sir Mycroft Holmes knows where they are. The Privacy policy prevents me from revealing that much detail publicly, but suffice it to say that the three accounts I identified were all editing from the same IP address. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

2sc945 block evasion

Just so you know, 2sc945 has been evading the block imposed in the latter half of February: compare the master with the following four edits. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 23:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that does appear to be the case. However, since these are mobile phone IPs, only the most recent edits could be considered actionable. I suspect that the next time they edit they will have a different address, so blocking at this point would likely be ineffective. Thanks for the information, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

More ([1]). I think a range block is in order. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 16:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I blocked this latest IP for a short time, but a rangeblock would negatively affect far too many legitimate users. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's pop the weasel again. Doesn't seem to get the message, eh? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 17:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it is very hard to get the message across, but there is little point in blocking that address now. RBI (except for B) is probably the best course of action here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Dd1234

Took me a while to catch on with this one - they had to vandalize my user page before I got clued in: User talk:DramnAce1234. See what you think. BMK (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Loserfacejerk is a possible as well, although only one edit. BMK (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The first one is  Confirmed but the second is  Inconclusive. They are obviously WP:NOTHERE, though, so I blocked them as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to come back to you so soon, but CurrentViews is the latest. BMK (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 as a vandalism only account. BMK (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:126.4.217.89. Not sure if you're allowed to do anything about it, though. BMK (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...that IP address is in Japan - a very long way from where Daffy has been editing. For the time being, it's probably best to just keep an eye on it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do. BMK (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please Accept My Apologies

To all members of Wikipedia that have been involved in this case, especially Bgwhite: I'm sincerely sorry for everything: I want to apologize for always giving you guys a hard time with my edits and contributions to any articles here on Wikipedia regarding Jordanian footballers and teams and I sincerely apologize for always ignoring your rules and warnings. I admit I was being selfish, thought I could always get away with it and always have it my way, as well as being too lazy to listen to any of you by ignoring the reasons you provide me as to why some of my edits violate the rules here on this website and ignoring your warnings. I apologize for my rude and selfish behavior. I just wanted to help, and I thought I could by adding more links and references to such articles, but I seriously did not know that using double brackets and this | in the links and references I add was a violation, I thought it wouldn't matter. With all due respect, what's the big deal with that exactly, what harm could be done? Is it only because it's totally unnecessary or what? And what's wrong with providing Arabic links and references here on Wikipedia? I mean, there are lots of articles here on Wikipedia, besides ones regarding Jordanian footballers, that include Arabic links and references. The only reason why I like to provide Arabic links and references to articles of Jordanian footballers here on Wikipedia is because they are the only ones that back up the information of these footballers and make a lot of sense, and there are hardly any English ones out there that help back up the info. Trust me, the Arabic ones are much better because they contain much more, or better yet, all sources of the info I provide. So I provide these links and references as sources to back up the info I provide. And as for all the Facebook links I've been trying to provide for the past few months, which I have also just removed myself for the past few days after I found out why providing certain Facebook links is inappropriate here on Wikipedia, I thought it was completely fine to do that after I saw Lionel Messi's Facebook page provided as a link on an article of him here on Wikipedia, so I thought I could help by doing the same to articles of Jordanian footballers here on Wikipedia, and I thought it wouldn't matter, in fact I thought the same was allowed to be done for any article here on Wikipedia of a footballer. So if it's really the links and references you guys have a problem with, just remove them yourselves from now on without having to revert my recent edits, like manually. As for me, I promise to never ever do this again. I really didn't mean to cause you guys any trouble with all I've been doing, I just wanted to help because I enjoy doing this, and I've been doing all this because I'm the one who created most articles/pages here on Wikipedia of Jordanian footballers, national teams, and clubs and improved all others created by other people. You see, I used to be the only one here on Wikipedia who had access to all the information of Jordanian footballers and teams until I tried to help everyone else here on Wikipedia, like readers and members, giving them access to this information by providing it here on Wikipedia.

So as of for now and from now on, please accept and leave my recent edits and contributions that I have made for the past few days because they are all now totally accurate and I tried to make it easier for you guys by removing Facebook links and the | symbols from the references I've been providing. Will you guys please forgive me, not get me into anymore trouble and not try to stop me from contributing by blocking me. Please let's just forget about all this and allow me to continue contributing because I want to help, is that so wrong? :(

Thank you for your cooperation :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneis1 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi! Tell me, please! I was blocked because sockpuppeter on the talk page Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Putin khuilo! And my voice was closed .... Now I can leave voice or is no longer have rights? --Jeromjerom (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeromjerom, now that your block has expired, you are allowed to edit. However, you are not allowed to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a discussion such as the deletion discussion you mentioned. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. --Jeromjerom (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Look - [2]. You wrote that I am allowed, I'm not allowed to writeJeromjerom (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ок. Please, then return version [3] . I did not break the rules. I do everything by the rules. .--Jeromjerom (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You as a person are ONLY allowed to !vote in an AFD one single time. If you have already !voted once, any subsequent !votes can be struck or removed because they violate the policies you agreed to the panda ₯’ 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

or at least leave my answer-discussion, which was removed a week ago [4]. --Jeromjerom (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You personally almost ensured that the article was deleted. Let me repeat in a different manner: your multiple !votes from multiple accounts was almost the cause of the article deletion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it the panda ₯’ 20:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

the panda ₯’, I was punished for this week blocking. Now all the rules! What's wrong now? --Jeromjerom (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Now all the rules"? No, you agreed to those rules when you arrived - they were always there. The AFD discussion is closed - yet you're still behaving like a menace. Stop. Go back to WP:5P and read every single link that you find from there the panda ₯’ 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can not understand why you talking to me with that tone of voice? What have I done? I served a sentence for violation. Now I do not break anything, but esdi you think that I break - block! Jeromjerom (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Response

Hello, first of all; I have the right to have another account, second not created to avoid any locks or anything like that, I do not understand why you block my account. If when the problem that was generated with the user Ricardo80 I did not use that account. Now my one wonder if it was my business the Chema account, so that would not explain nor lied about who he was. So I request you to unblock my other account. This user Ricardo80 is only upset because I'm enforcing the rules of wikipedia.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 16:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read this part of the sockpuppetry policy. You have used both accounts to edit the same material, which gives the appearance of two separate people, something that is not allowed per policy. I will not be unblocking your alternate account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Self-Reverting edits to archives

Hello, sir. Given the present confusion at User:HoshiNoKaabii2000's SPI, can I please revert the redirects I placed in the SPI archives of both HoshiNoKaabii2000 and WangsDaringsFun? Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

PS, I'm really sorry about all of the trouble that I have caused there. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're talking about reverting your own edits? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed that no one took down those redirects (and SPI clerks have continued to archive cases to their original destinations) so now it's kind of funky. So yes, I would like to revert what I have done to those pages. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead, but please leave me a message here right after you finish. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the temporary delay. Anyhow, it has been done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Back to the L'Aquotique sockfest

Fram closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie White because it was full of socks (for example, you blocked the nominator, King Nebuchadnezzar II), but it was promptly reverted by another user; his contributions show that this was his first edit outside of userspace, and made less than an hour and a half after he registered. Is more checkuser activity warranted? I'd like to block the account immediately, as this is a duck-with-megaphone situation in my eyes, but I'm not familiar enough with the case and might mark him as the sock of the wrong person or make some other confusing statement. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is another one. I'll be blocking some more open proxies in the morning, I think. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) Another account and two spambot-infested Chinese /16s blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

socking D62943

Part of what makes for a confusing case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D62943 is the bicoastal activity of the accounts. The original D62943 grouping appears to be based in New Jersey while the Geoffrey100 grouping appears to be based in the San Francisco Bay Area. The topics of interest include TV and (mostly) radio stations, shopping malls or retail districts, and various Chinese-related topics. Rschen7754 can probably offer some insight, having early experience with the socks. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm managing, but I just haven't had the time to analyze the complex results I'm seeing. Plus, my browser crashed with several tabs full of CU results that I'll need to run again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq.

You did the CU on the above report. Another report has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmirSurfLera. Does the second report make any sense in light of the first?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you'll notice that the four IP addresses in the report geolocate to four very diverse locations, and that one of the accounts has been around a bit over three years. Also, please see this case where the two blue linked accounts were accused of being socks of another master. In light of my findings in the last case, I think we're going to need better evidence before any checks will be run. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the filer of the latest SPI for one week for violating WP:1RR per WP:ARBPIA. The information you provided is interesting (I knew nothing about it), but my original question had more to do with whether in the first report you looked for sleepers for Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk · contribs · count), the master in the first report, who was alleged to be a puppet in the second report. There's a lot of different accounts in each but yet a good deal of overlap. I haven't clerked the first report, although I could take over, but I think I'd rather let Callanecc, who began it, finish it. At the same time, I'm a bit cautious about clerking the second. Sepsis II is accusing everyone and their mother of being socks; it's rather disturbing, even if the odds are he may be right in one or two instances (the scattershot approach).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall the details of the checks I ran, but I do know that the three accounts weren't even remotely related, at least from a technical standpoint. As for the scattershot approach, you can probably guess what my response to that is. ;) Anyway, since Callanecc filed and self endorsed that case, it would be best if someone else did the clerking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've closed both reports with no action. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Daffyduck1234

After a period of quiet, it looks possible that Dd1234 has returned, this time as User:DinFin. The suite of articles editied is slightly different but overlaps with Dd1234's interest in Matt and Kim, and the pattern of editing (i.e. additng unsourced dates, creating articles about borderline notable people, always editing from a mobile device) is the same. I think it's worth a look, if you agree. BMK (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, DinFin is a  Confirmed match. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm keeping on eye on User:MichaelBatch, just created, whose only edit has been to remove the sockpuppetry tag from Dd1234's user page. BMK (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a huge red flag. Blocked along with another account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lances up!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded for service above and beyond the call of duty at WP:SPI, braving the deepest wormholes to ferret out the slipperiest socks. Bravo! Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

RfA/sock problem

If you can, please take a look at SMJ Examiner (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

CU wasn't particularly helpful, but their range has been widely abused over the years. It wouldn't surprise me if they're evading a block somewhere, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Legit sock question

I stumbled to a user who says that he retired from his original account, and opened a new one, which would constitute a clean start per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. He then says that he edited under an IP, and now he is returned from retirement on his original account, and the second account he created claims that the user is on a wiki-break. If I read the clean start section correctly, this is illegal, correct? He could have abandoned the second account only if he went and created a fresh third (or fourth, fifth...) account? Ben^Yes? 18:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing the details, I can say this: If a user abandons account A, then creates account B as a cleanstart, account A should never be used again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll post it and see what happens, thanks. Ben^Yes? 01:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocking socks

Callanecc had also forgot to tag once, so it might be natural but shouldn't be overlooked. Can you tag all users that have been confirmed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique? Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about something on the two open cases, a clerk will take care of that before closing them, but I did go ahead and delete the impersonation userpage. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

CIC7 blocked.

Can you explain to me why I have been blocked. This happened right after I asked for help with a problem I am having with individuals removing uploads I put on Category:Bud Uanna on Commons. I started Category:Bud Uanna on Commons and the Wikipedia listing for William Lewis Uanna - who is my father. My question about Commons is: Is there an appeal to removing uploads? It appears that someone can claim Copyright infringement and remove uploads without having to prove if an actual Copyright infringement exists. What exactly did I do to be blocked. Did someone try to contact me through Email? I recently had my Email hijacked. I cannot access it any more. I now have a new Email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIC7 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I am not blocked! I just made an edit on William Lewis Uanna. I guess I was not logged in! But, can you give me any advice about the Commons upload deletions? Is there an ombudsman? CIC7 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I can only assume that there is a block affecting your IP address, but it clearly isn't affecting your ability to edit while logged in, so you're good to go here. As for deletions on Commons, I don't think I'd be much help. I'm not an admin there and have only made a handful of edits there myself. I suggest that you contact a Commons admin or other experienced user there. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

AWB, ANI, SPI

After I made this comment, I noticed your comment in the middle of all that traffic. Is there something I should know, particularly with respect to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SashaKahn? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DeltaQuad is doing the CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't really looked much at that case. I was just commenting that since the AWB...ehh...never mind. ;) Email if you really want to know. But looking at the CU data for a couple of the accounts, it looks more likely that they're just opening up a bunch of tabs in their browser and saving them all at once. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it's okay. :-) DQ completed the CU, and I just spent some time sorting it out to clerk it (hopefully) properly. It's one for the books, at least for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Mrwallace05

Did you happen to check user Lukejordan02 in this case? I know there was only one set of diffs but they were nearly identical. It would be nice to rid all of the sockpuppets once and for all. Thanks. Piriczki (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That account was not in the list of suspected sockpuppets, so no, I didn't check them. I can tell you that they didn't show up in the results where I saw the other two accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Who

Is Mei09494049300909 (talk · contribs · count) someone else's puppet?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I think so. Please see my recent addition to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008. Considering how long it has been between the detection of the last batch and these, I imagine that a few accounts have slipped through the cracks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's late. If no one else gets to it first, I'll clerk it tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Good old Callanecc; he took care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerning OopsIP26...

... the block log reads:

• 06:52, July 11, 2014 DoRD (talk | contribs) blocked OopsIP26 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{checkuserblock-account}})

Did you confirm it as being IPhonehurricane95? I would like to properly categorize this user, so... Dustin (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

They're a confirmed sock of...someone. I need to discuss it with some other CUs to figure out what's going on before making a determination, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have seen some instances of blocked users creating sock puppets which appear to be sock puppets of other blocked users, so I suppose it only makes sense to put this issue on hold before making any sort of determination. Dustin (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Slightly confused

• Gregorygoyle (talk · contribs · count)
• DABustersBar (talk · contribs · count)

You blocked DABustersBar based on block evasion of User:Daveandbusters1345. Callanecc tagged DABusters as a puppet of Daveandbusters1345. However, Daveandbusters1345 is a puppet of David Beals, so I changed the tag. I just blocked Gregory, and I tagged him as a suspected puppet of Beals. Are there two masters here or just one? (Looks like Gregory is admitting the puppetry, although he calls it vandalism.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I based my block on DUCK, but after taking a peek behind the curtain just now, I agree that they're Beals. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

See my comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daveandbusters1345. Should I merge?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dd1234

I'm looking at Daydevan8613. BMK (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this account is a match to Teenspiritretroclub (talk · contribs). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. BMK (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not just sockers but hoaxers! Those two SPIs could be merged. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wbclassicgirl/Archive, which was never folded into the Devanday01 archive. BMK (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look at User:BuddyRedBow? It's got all the signs of a Dd1234 sock. BMK (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is Dd1234...well... Possible, to use SPI terminology. The technical details don't quite match, but he could have upgraded his device since the last sock I saw. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd, since the behavioral evidence is pretty cut and dried, extending to the uploading of an image to Commons -- although I note that the image is not a cellphone photo, as has been normal for Dd1234's identities, but a scan, photograph or found image of an album cover. The naming of the image, however, File:His album 2014-07-16 22-07.jpg, is in the same format as previous Dd1234 images: eg. File:Whatever 2014-03-31 19-05.jpg, File:Hi 2014-03-25 20-08.jpg - I believe almost all other photos have been deleted there as copyvios or out of scope. BMK (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple of the behavioral give-aways:

• The creation of sub-sub-stub articles about boderline notable people. A number of Dd1234's socks have done this, and I've just left a note for BuddyRedBow about the articles he created, all of which have been converted into redirects by myself and other editors.
• The article Alexander Young (musician) has been a favorite of the Dd socks. It's been edited by PepeGrande, CocacolaRock, GoldrenCorral, Donemoney, ColeenCherokee, and now BuddyRedBow.
• The Supremes, edited by KellOsborne528612184 and BuddyRedBow
• Floyd Red Crow Westerman, edited by Pomloverborn1999 and BuddyRedBow

If he keeps editing, I'm certain there will be more, he never strays too far from a relatively small number of articles. BMK (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Banned user

I noticed you banned user:YourNewKing following a checkuser. You may want to check the essentially identical edits made by another "new" user only a few days later: user:AURALVIRUS. Regards, 62.107.209.193 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this. This is another sockpuppet of Wickedangry, so I have blocked (banned means something different) this account as well. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 62.107.209.193 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you for dealing with the sockpuppet, you are much more useful than that other... user doing nothing but making sarcastic remarks. If I have anymore concerns about a sockpuppet I will directly ask you if that's OK. BTW I noticed a bit higher up the page that a user asked you about me being a sockpuppet, I am very upset/annoyed/frustrated about this as I am not never have been and never will be, and you can check every inch you need to if you want, that user had a disagreement with me a long time a go and was very controlling, anyway thanks again. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockmaster

Hi DoRD, I've only just noticed what you did here; thank you for that. I am glad I got delayed in reviewing his request to be unblocked! Acalamari 21:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was also unaware of who I had when I was looking at another inappropriately named account yesterday, but it was this unblock request that got me on the right track. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a certain editor from a moment ago...

I think it is necessary that talk page access be revoked considering what it is being used for. Would you consider? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Childish attacks like that are of little concern to me, but if pulling their talk becomes necessary, I'd prefer that another admin makes that call. Thanks again for the reverts. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just ignore the IP then. Dustin (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock

Can you take a look at User:QUEEN EUGENIE APPLEGATE(ALEGADO)? I'm not familiar with User:HENRY APPLEGATE, but maybe him? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 03:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's another: User:KINGS AND QUEENS OF THE UNIVERSES. INeverCry 03:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

INeverCry also asked me to have a look. I did, and confirmed blocked tagged. I see no immediate sleepers on a /16 range. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put in a lock request. INeverCry 04:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of these, Materialscientist. I haven't seen HENRY in a while, but it seems that he has eluded the edit filter, so thanks for bringing these to our attention, INeverCry. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AcidSnow

Could you take a look at this? I'm not concerned about the block of the creator of the SPI, but I'm not sure if I have the right master. I'm making the most obvious recent connection, but based on some of the comments by others at the SPI, it could be someone else. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked, but none of the accounts are technically related to one another, and I didn't see anything to indicate another master. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that does make things a bit tough. The creator of the SPI clearly has an agenda and is WP:NOTHERE. That's their first edit. They also changed the other editor's user page. My feeling is to remove the tags from the user pages, leave the block in place for the new account for meat puppetry and disruption (change the block notice on their talk page), and close the SPI report as declined. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is further disruption, that sounds like a reasonable solution for now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nyah West

Thanks for your action on this page. I've indefblocked the user in question, and semiprotected the page for a short while to prevent them from coming back with a new account to vandalize it again. -- The Anome (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for what you did, too. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino

The correct master is Jazzman49 (talk · contribs · count). Other than the extra work, is there any reason not to correct the SPI accordingly?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason except that the accounts are almost the same age. Go right ahead, if you want to. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a day. Does that mean it'd be okay just to leave it alone (I could always leave a note but not change the master)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Personally, I'd just leave it as is, but thinking back to my clerking days...I'd have renamed the case, etc. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely rename it if were at an earlier stage and everything hadn't already been tagged, but it seems a bit form over substance. How long ago were your clerking days?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I admin patrolled and clerked cases for a several months leading up to getting the CU bit about two years ago. As far as the correct master goes, it's usually a judgement call. If the younger account is more established, and the behavior is more associated with it, I usually leave it alone. If the older account is more established or significantly older, I'll go with renaming. If everything is about the same, well, it's back to "what works better?" or "is it worth the effort?" ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Now you're getting nuanced on me, and all I came to that SPI for was to archive it. Sigh. I've looked at the contributions of the two users. Both started editing at roughly the same time and stopped at roughly the same time. Both did a certain amount of editing on the same pages. However, misconduct-wise, Jazzerino wins. Neither of them has that many edits, but Jazzerino has 3x as many as Jazzman. Also for whatever reason Jazzerino uses pugnacious edit summaries, whereas Jazzman doesn't really use edit summaries. So, I'm going to finish clerking the report (turns out that many two of the accounts are not tagged) and close it. I'm also going to archive it, even though that's not usual, because the only reason it's still open is I reopened it to keep it from being archived while I made this momentous decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh...sorry about that. ;) Anyway, the result looks good. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky/Jazzerino

I think you should poke a bit more at the connection you seem to be building between MariaJaydHicky socks and Jazzerino socks. I've dealt with MariaJaydHicky extensively, and I'm confident that she and Jazzerino are separate individuals. I was watching VanillaGreek, having discarded the idea that it was a MariaJaydHicky sock, and was beginning to wonder if it was Jazzerino taunting Dan56 again. This morning, I see the account has been confirmed as MariaJaydHicky.

Obviously, with all that magic pixie dust at your disposal, you can see more than I can, but I worry that there's a BT residential proxy involved here that is blurring your results.—Kww(talk) 14:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the lines are a bit blurry. I understand what you're getting at, but when I checked Vanilla, I found a number of already blocked socks which were linked to Maria. The technical details matched Maria, but not Jazz, so that's how I called it. I haven't dealt with either Maria or Jazz until just recently, so I could easily be missing something. If you have any beans or private info that might help here, please drop me an email. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oglesruins/Archive

Hi DoRD--I think user Oxfolsh might well be another one (see their edit on Mexico City, a repeat of an edit by Wanlyyards). I'm curious how many sleepers you find this time: they seem to be busy. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this, where they clarify the intent of Reranian, another Oglesruins sock. So I'm rolling back and blocking, but I'm still interested in a sleeper check. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oxfolsh is  Confirmed along with one sleeper, Dov Brayan. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You should probably get one of these every week. Thanks DoRD. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To avoid confusion.

Okay, last night (Before you blocked the IP) I made this account so I would stop getting alerts about things I didn't do. I just thought you would want to know because you blocked my IP a few hours after I made the account. Am I allowed to keep it, or are you going to ban this account too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheElderFox (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as you use this account in a productive manner, you shouldn't have any trouble. If you revert to your previous behavior, on the other hand, you should expect to be blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok cool. Just wanted to make sure it was okay. TheElderFox (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

CU question at ANI

Hello, could you check in at WP:ANI, section "Blocked user admits on Japanese Wikipedia to engaging in sockpuppetry here" please? Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment there in a bit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock accounts

I've found several accounts, all spam-linking to pages on http://www_dot_magicalrealism_dot_us/ on their userpages. I've CSD'd them under U5:

• ‎User:Wichitaphd
• ‎User:Northcarolina007
• ‎User:Newyorkmagica007
• ‎User:Californiamagic
• ‎User:Russianphd
• ‎User:Magicalrealism007
• ‎User:Rocknrollover

Thanks for your time. INeverCry 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, thought the spam block list would have kicked in. I broke the above link on purpose. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As a small token of my appreciation, I give you this shiny new spambot. INeverCry 06:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Several accounts and a couple of webhosts have been blocked. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a new RFCU from Commons concerning Lawline that may be of interest. INeverCry 01:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User:BigGuy is a confirmed Lawline sock. INeverCry 19:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

Did you mean to suppress all these edits to AN/I? If so, why? - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Unfortunately, when something that shouldn't be posted ends up on such a busy page, this is what must be done to protect an editor's privacy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the normal use of suppressing edits, but this has suppressed the diffs for over a hundred posts to AN/I and I fail to see how this can be protecting anything. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

When the offending information is included in 168 revisions of the page, all 168 revisions have to be suppressed. Due to technical limitations of the MediaWiki software, there is no way to selectively remove material. Please see WP:Revision deletion#Technical details, particularly the third bullet under Limitations and issues for more information. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to watch ANI much (judged by your contributions), but your mass suppression has been asked about. I think most people will understand why you had to suppress everything. I just feel obligated to tell you about this because I linked to this section of your talk page there. moluɐɯ 14:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to avoid that noticeboard. Thanks for letting me know. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sidney Pontoon

I just indeffed this account as a troll, although I also suspected sock puppetry. I then looked at one of the articles the user edited, Egged, and his edit was pretty much the same as that of User:FQ Examiner, a suspected puppet of User:Shalom Yechiel. If you feel like looking into this, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: This edit is the same one that 142.217.121.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making. SP's edit summary also matches the post the IP made here. You may have already checked on this but I thought I would add it if helps in tracking down the original editor. MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was already familiar with the IP, but there's nothing wrong with an IP creating an account. As I recall, the IP made only a few edits, and they were trollish in nature, but there weren't enough to block him, although a very experienced user complained bitterly about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into it later (or maybe tomorrow). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sorry it took so long, but here you go: These are all  Confirmed to one another and they are  Possible Shalom Yechiel socks:

• Sidney Pontoon (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kelly Gwinnell (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mr. Jones and me (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

They don't quite match FQ Examiner, but they are in the same geographic location. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There was no urgency. Thanks for checking. I've tagged them all as suspected puppets of Shalom Yechiel.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) DoRD, can a checkuser check a user when requested by someone on their talk page?? Is it allowed?? I mean, is it allowed to check a user on request at talk pages of a checkuser instead of requesting a checkuser investigation at WP:SPI?? I don't have much knowledge, please enlighten me. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite a common occurrence. Please see WP:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser for the relevant policy. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP vandal

Hi. Since you're an admin with checkuser, I was wondering if you could check these three accounts out: Dariusjcarter15 (talk), Dontrell380 (talk), and Facundopinto (talk). All three strictly edit BLP articles; the first two were the earliest and have been blocked for vandalizing BLPs, particularly Cari Champion, where they made the same exact edit repeatedly--this revision to the infobox which was just done by Facundopinto. All three have been warned repeatedly, and this article has been protected in response to their edits. Dan56 (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually handle requests for previously unknown socking this way, so I considered sending you to file an SPI, but the evidence was compelling enough to run some checks. For my results, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattthebohl. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ip vandal

Can you block the ip vandal (86.129...) that corrupted the article of Haplogroup P-M45 and many other articles? ArordineriiiUkhtt (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I could, but since they have stopped editing, there is no point in blocking the IP now. For a much faster response, please make a report at WP:AIV next time you spot a vandal. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian

I am right that a CU is not possible in this case, aren't I? If for some reason I'm not, I'll endorse it. Based on the ANI discussion, in my view the two accounts should be indeffed based on the egregious deception. Why no one at ANI took that action is beyond me. I'm willing to do that on my own, though, but I'm unconvinced that the accounts are socks of Afro-Eurasian. They might be socks of someone, and they might even be socks of Afro-Eurasian, but the evidence isn't there despite poor Saroko's best efforts and many points. Anyway, let me know about the CU issue. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that all of the confirmed socks are stale, and I found that the semi-static IP they were using previously has also gone stale. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

SPI-related edit request at User:Myuser89

Hello. It's been quite a while. As per the new conditions I outlined on my talk page, I will bring all edit requests related to SPI pages to an admin before carrying them out (and only if they comply). Can I please remove the excessive sock/sockmaster tags added by another IP? When I'm done, only the confirmed tag will be remaining, based on the Checkuser results at User:Altimgamr's SPI archives. I believe that the extra tags are unnecessary, and only serve to clutter up the page, and possibly cause some complications in the categories to which they link. However, I will await your permission before taking any action. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone and deleted as it has just existing as a venue for more disruption. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Glad to see that you've taken care of it. But what if the same IP editor shows up again and tries to cause more trouble on a related page? LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, we'll figure it out. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damián80

Hi, can you tell me what happens ?, not understand the truth; I myself have long said that the account "Chema" was mine, I do not understand because they take this again, I know it has to do.--Damián (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that the SPI case will result in a block for this account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So I will lock my account again ?, and why if I have not done anything. Well I do not understand. The problem with "chema" has already been resolved long ago, and it was blocked. So why stick with the same.--Damián (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. My Spanish is not good enough to translate it, but there will probably not be a block. If your English is not good enough to understand my simple message, perhaps the English Wikipedia is not the place for you to be editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Now if I understand better. The truth is I do not understand some words. But I've read the best message.--Damián (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Another SPI edit request

Can I please delete the first "13 July 2014" log from User:Altimgamr's SPI archives? It is nearly identical to the second copy of the report, minus an additional statement that is present in the second version only, so the first version is basically redundant. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see what happened. There was vandalism by User:The Ranoclue to the SPI itself. It was reverted. However, the same user vandalized the archive, and it was not reverted. That vandalism added the report. Then when the SPI was archived with the report, it created a duplicate.

Putting that aside, why are you even looking at archives and possible errors in the archives? Don't you have something -- anything - else to do?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And this edit pushes the envelope.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you may not. Please go back and read condition #3 on your talk page. Your request earlier was stretching condition #6, as is the edit pointed out by Bbb23 above. I noticed earlier that you commented on an SPI case as well. You really need to stay away from sockpuppetry-related stuff altogether. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading archives to keep up with the latest hubbub. And as for the other question, yes, I do have better things to do. As a matter of fact, I'm quite busy at the moment. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not kidding. My school year begins tomorrow, and since there are a bunch of articles that I want to finish working on before then, I have to get going. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

You seem to have gotten User:Wash your pants taken care of rather quickly. I'm wondering why exactly was my talk page vandalized? Because I have almost no clue on the matter at hand. GamerPro64 00:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why or how he chose the users he did for his vandalism, but thankfully, another user spotted it and alerted us right away. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it should be looked into more. But either way, thank you for taking care of it. The damn thing took me by surprise, that's for sure. GamerPro64 00:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did just look into it because he is a known, long-term abusive sockmaster. I'm sorry that you were on the receiving end of his anger. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like what's going on. GamerPro64 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I, so I have blocked Syanaee as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your troubles. GamerPro64 01:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Evlikis

Hi DoRD, noticed your rearranging of those SPI archives (thanks!). Just to give you the heads up, we noticed some oddities in the CU results on that one which I'll write into a security bugzilla later today when I have a chance. Also, several of these accounts seem to have either been created on Meta or have stuck their nose on other projects (not sure quite what they're doing) so maybe we need to consider alerting CU-L and/or having the accounts globally blocked? Thoughts would be appreciated. Risker (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anything odd in the results, but I only gave them a cursory glance to confirm my suspicions about the accounts. I'll wait for your bugzilla and will look at the case to see if anything else needs to be done. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you folk talking about the latest edition of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis in which Long Brown Turd is no longer the master? I can see that DoRD moved the page himself. Wouldn't it be good somewhere in that case (the one with LBT and all the other accounts) to say something about the connection with Evlekis. When you read it, it kinda makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, after going over the CU data and examining the behavior, I'm convinced that LBT is Evlekis. I didn't comment in the case because I though that the move and the retag of LBT would be enough, but I can say something there if necessary. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good to say something. Editors shouldn't have to look at the history to figure it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Per beans, I didn't say much, but  Done. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good enough, thanks. I retagged some of the accounts (some had already been retagged but not all) and will now archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated suspected sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello DoRD, since the check user on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa indicated that User:Spartacus905 was not related to the sockmaster, is this edit warring here not extremely inappropriate? In my own opinion is it pretty clear they are separate people, yet the user will not give it up. STATic message me! 05:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: The C/U stated User:Spartacus905 didn't appear to be related to Monterossa. It was not a conclusive finding. I still believe strongly based on several factors that the Spartacus account is, indeed, Monterrosa. There is still a suspicion, hence, the tag on Spartacus' page. And may I remind you both that Spartacus has ceased editing and has never come to the SPI to plead his/her case that they aren't a sockpuppet. This is a typical behavior of Monterossa socks. All that, plus the User Comparison Report (here:[5] gives a very strong case for WP:DUCK. That is why I believe the suspicion of socking tag should stay. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't place sock tags on users, particularly when the case is closed by a clerk or CU with no action taken against the user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine. But you're wrong. That account is a Monterrosa sock. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The technical data contradicts your verdict. These two accounts were editing within hours of one another, using different devices, from impossibly distant locations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is that. I've been wrong many times before, looks like I'm wrong this time, as well. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yay you finally admitted it. So you were attacking me and insisting I was trying to help the sockmaster for no reason, nice. STATic message me! 16:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I never attacked you, I never insisted you were trying to help the sockmaster. You seem to read a lot into what editors actually say to you. To the point of continually calling them liars. Doing so, of course, is a personal attack. But is talking about this on an uninvolved editor's talk page necessary? I don't think so. If you'd like to file a complaint in regard to any behavior you imagine I've engaged in, commence. If not, then it's not worth taking up bandwidth and space on someone else's talk page. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes you did insist that, when you reverted my reverts, of your edits reverting your suspected socks making constructive edits, when the accounts/IPs turned out not to be related at all. If you have been around SPI enough, you would know a check user would not label an account as unrelated, unless it is literally impossible to be as DoRD just explained it was. There is no point to this back-and-forth between us anymore. Just in the future, assume good faith and do not revert IPs or accounts unless they are confirmed via a SPI. DoRD thank you very much for clarifying all this, I was only worried about a good faith editor having his edits reverted and continuously tagged as a sockpuppet (not literally, but that is how they would see it), even after they had been confirmed to be unrelated. STATic message me! 19:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socks in Chitral and elsewhere

I notice that you recently CU-blocked Deepak Chitrali (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Am I right in assuming that this editor is a sock of Sher Aziz (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), currently blocked for a week for disruptive editing due to activities strongly resembling those of DC? If yes, I will up the block on SA to indefinite. Favonian (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those two are the same. I assumed that the admin who requested the check would have tagged them, but I guess I should have at least mentioned it in my block comment. Sorry for the confusion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for taking care of it. Glad to see the back of SA – until his next sock, that is. Favonian (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Daffyduck again?

Hi, it's been a while, but if you think it's worth it, you might want to check Thebig50Five-Oh to see if it's another block-evading sock of Daffyduck1234. Same MO, hit some of the same articles (William Pennell, for instance), created multiple single-sentence articles about non-notable persons. Thanks. BMK (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The users Thebig50Five-Oh, Nthropov and BuddyRedBow are now blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Aldota sockpuppet accounts

Hi, I can see you added tags to some of the user pages on blocked sockpuppet accounts from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aldota. However, it would appear that one-by-one throwaway IPs are vandalising these user pages by removing or amending the tags so the account no longer appears in the category.

I have restored all the tags on all the account I have found, however, you may wish to add the userpages to your watchlist to monitor any potential future vandalism or protect the pages, thanks take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I rarely watchlist any sockpuppet userpages because the sheer number of them would quickly overwhelm the rest of my watchlist. Thanks for keeping an eye on these accounts, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks good...thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

SPI case

I have copied the content. Are there any mistakes about it? Bests. 149.140.46.188 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks good to me. You saved an SPI clerk a fair amount of work by doing that. Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Return of blocked user

Some time ago I forwarded a link to what I suspected was a blocked user. After you confirmed it, this user (and all the socks) were blocked. Based on near-identical edits with an apparent dislike for following information in citations, it looks like he is back: user:RoselineShark. Could you please check it? Regards, 62.107.215.58 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's another sockpuppet alright. Thanks again! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it is appreciated. 62.107.215.58 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Pigs Posture

Hi, You've very kindly blocked this user as a sock, would it be possible to remove the talk page access as previous evidence leads me to believe theres soon going to be a page of about 2-300 lines of Amortias is a <<insert various expletives here>>, Nawlinwiki is a <<insert various expletives here>>, Smalljim is a <<insert various expletives here>> any help would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the CU interface doesn't give me that option, but it's done now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Check

If you get a chance to can you please look at this investigation? AcidSnow (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there are a lot of cases in line before this one. Incidentally, you filed the case incorrectly, but I repaired it. You need to file cases via WP:SPI or with Twinkle, otherwise the missing case status templates will cause it to not appear in the open cases list. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help so far. Please don't rush yourself and take your time. AcidSnow (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)