User talk:Mayalld/Archive/2009/April

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universal Hero‎

Hi I see you reverted my latest comments with twinkle, it is normal policy to add an edit history when using automated tools see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_60#Twinkle.

The aggregated info was new information. As was the fact that ATVN denied the what universal hero had said.

The reason the comment was there was that User:KnightLago said that the fairuse violations were not relevant. My comment would have been out of context anywhere else.

You also state 'Repeated additions of more pieces of evidence just puts us back to square one', more infomation was been requested by User:KnightLago which is what I provided.

I wanted to add that I had found ATVNs denial at User_talk:GameKeeper/Archive_1#Apologies to my comments too, but do not want to reinstate my comments if there is a valid reason for thier removal.

Can you reinstate mt comment. I dont mind where you place it. GameKeeper (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the missing edit summary, but see your talk page. This case is going down the pan, largely due to the addition of grossly excessive quantities of "evidence". For the present, there is more than enough evidence to work through, and the extra that has been added this morning doesn't bring anything new to the party. Can you hold off for now. If more is needed, we will ask for it. Mayalld (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll hold off, unfortunately it is a complex case. Good luck! GameKeeper (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai

It does not matter one way or the other whether the account was pro or con an DRV, as it is already fully understood that remarks by a SPA account will be disregarded... and such was understood when the remark at the DRV was through guideline tagged as one made by a SPA. What became worth noting is the discussion itself being tainted by the tossing around of accusations that the account was a sock of a vilified and banned user. I have no problem agreeing that User:Jarmancooper and User:Jarmancooper2 are SPA socks of somebody. I cannot accept the one edit and then the reference to an controversial essay as being enough to determine just who that user might be, despite the bluster about how it could only be Manhattan Samurai. I request that CU reopen and make the check, to at least either confirm or remove the taint of the Manhattan Samurai name from the blocked accounts. More to the point, if these two additional names are not socks of Manhattan Samuria, it is important to find out just who IS using these socks abusively. Referring to the Duck essay implies socks... and that is not in contention. However, it does not tell us whose they are... and so if a checkuser can determine, I'd like to know just who it is that is crapping on the system. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser usage is governed by policy, and in my judgement this doesn't warrant CheckUser. Socking is clearly going on, and the users can be blocked on the strength of it. Using CheckUser to go on a "fishing trip" to try and find some other putative master simply isn't permitted. Mayalld (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also having connection problems...

... damn 'net is dropping out on me every 15/20 minutes. Sorry to be so slow taking up my trainee duties - it's not a reflection of my motivation. Just the !@@!@#%$#%$$ quality of my ISP here in the third world. I'll try to get it sorted out today and then hopefully get back online with a stable connection. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

SPI - Rockyobody

I saw you closed the SPI due to the time that has passed and the sock puppet activity appearing to have stopped. While I do agree that the sock puppetry appears to have ended, I would like to say, for the record, that I believe that the investigation was interfered with to such a degree that a satisfactory conclusion was not possible.

Other editors who may have noticed instances of suspicious editing by the accused editor may never have been aware of the investigation because Rockyobody had his user pages protected due to ‘retirement’, but continued to edit. The removal of the SPI notices from the different user pages, the editing of the SPI page itself and the filing of retaliatory SPI reports against the two editors who did give evidence seemed a cynical attempt at harassment and manipulating the process.

It came as no surprise to me that after the closure of the investigation the SPI notices were removed from the different user pages by an anon editor from the same US state and using the same ISP as the suspected IP sock puppets.

JimRDJones (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Case

I don't understand why you again declined a CheckUser case I have opened. The first one I opened some time back you rejected on similar grounds as the one you just have only for another administrator to find out that the user in question was, in fact, using sockpuppets. Why is it so hard to believe that this is the case here? Don't you find it a little suspicious that two essentially brand new accounts -- one an IP the other a proper account -- show up literally minutes after I restore the edit in question to revert back to the exact same version of the article as the suspected sockpuppeteer? Or that the IP that this other account claims as being himself (and not the sockpuppeteer) has an IP range almost identical to that of another IP that edited only a few edits earlier and which the sockpuppeteer did, by contrast, claim responsibility for? Please respond. Soupforone (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that the policy asks for abusive use of sockpuppets - i.e., specific policy violations while socking (as opposed to just using an alternate account, or editing while logged out). While edit warring meets that requirement, in the CU process what is generally looked for are 3RR violations or other problems like attempts to form a false consensus by double-voting or duplicate participation in discussion. In this case, and perhaps in the previous case, the request for a CU check has been clerk-declined (a CU may look and come to a different conclusion) because the evidence of policy violation is pretty bare. It looks plausible that the user is socking, but the evidence needs to be better for a CU check. Avruch ^T 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You (Soupforone) appear to have misunderstood the CheckUser process.

It is entirely possible that CU will be declined, but socks found. Checkuser is a tool that can be used only for certain very serious cases of sockpuppetry. It isn't used in all (or even the majority of) sockpuppet cases, and one of the functions of the SPI clerks is to ensure that only serious cases are put forward to CU. In this case, you presented no evidence that the case was so serious that it justified a CU under case "F", and vaguely suggested "D" (3RR). As things stand, even if the socking is substantiated, there are only 3 reverts, so no breach of WP:3RR has happened. In the past case, you alleged "C" (vote stacking affecting outcome), but there was no evidence that the outcome of a vote was affected, and "E" (Community sanction evasion), but there was no evidence that a sanction was being evaded.

Declining CU is not always a judgement as to whether there is socking going on, but it is a judgement that there is no evidence of any of the serious transgressions that justify CU. When filing SPI cases, the default should be not to request CU, and only add CU if there is evidence. Requesting CU every time, and trying to make the reasons fit is not the way to proceed. Mayalld (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't realize all that. Thanks for the info guys. I was under the impression that the CheckUser tool was like a prerequisite of sorts to solving sockpuppetry cases. And you're right Mayalld; I did input the wrong code letter in my last request, but only realized it after the fact. Anyway, I appreciate the help regardless. You live and you learn, I guess. Soupforone (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mayalld. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mcenroeucsb.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ask for help

Hello Mayalld,

Thank you for looking at my case and closing it. i was wondering if I can remove the sockpuppet tag posted to my user page. I'd appreciate your advice.

Best Regards, Shayan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan.mashatian (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tags from both pages Mayalld (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Having Connection Problems

I am having connection problems and theefore problems trying to do a Sockpuppet investigation.

Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added more info to the sockpuppet investigation for Khalsaburg. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Look forget all the other bits I have added and just note teh bit about the mention about the sites www.jattworld.com and punjabi.net. There is no way of God's earth Khalsaburg would know about that unless he/she was Satanoid. The reason being that admins deleted that due to the WP:OUTING case. --Sikh-history (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So what happens now?--Sikh-history (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A CheckUser will carry out checks to see if both users are sharing internet connectivity, and will report back in a couple of days. Mayalld (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added correct links on this. I think. --Sikh-history (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have turned two of the links into diffs. The rest are still just "oldid" links. In any case, the links that you have provided concentrate exclusively upon showing that these users are behaving badly. They may well be behaving badly, but WP:SPI is not the place to seek assistance with general poor behaviour. CheckUser has shown that these users share an internet connection. That might be a problem if there is evidence of the accounts can be shown working together. On the other had it could be entirely innocent. If this case is to be taken any further, there are two issues to address;

1. Is there any editing behaviour that suggests that the two users are working together to subvert consensus?
2. Why was that behaviour not apparent before.

Please don't post more diffs showing me that one or other account has done something nasty. Such information is not relevant to the question of sockpuppetry. Mayalld (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you also check the following user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.238.29.55 and user:sikh-history, if they are the same??

Here he says he doesn't wish to create a new account (below) yet he's the same user and has been editing 3HO and changing everything from AKJ to 3HO to fit in with his own agenda(s). I will return to this but to cut a long story short, I edit from a library.

Quote from here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sinneed/Archive_2&action=edit "Hi friend, I have been watching an edit war going on. This user appears to be trying to add vast amounts of extremist Sikh POV. I noticed from the Sikh Extremist thread (which has great edits from you) taht you know about Sikh affairs. Could you watch this fellows edits. I don't wish to get involved or make an account. --92.238.29.55 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)"

If you can also look at the same talk page of uswer:Sineed re:ISBN and obfuscation, hopefully you wont be forced to take a one sided view. Thanks Khalsaburg (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have opened a case, and that will be dealt with in due course. However, the case that was opened about you remains open, and Checkuser has shown that you share your internet connection with other users. In general, it is preferable that the outstanding case against you is disposed of before we look into a counter-allegation by you against your accuser. Your comments about the case against you would be welcome. Mayalld (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please investigate my IP you are welcome. You will not however find any wrong doing i.e. pretending to be a Muslim and a Sikh. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi there. I am currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson. I would like to request a checkuser to prove my innocence. I am not sure how to do this though. Can you advice please.Nrswanson (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think I figured it out. Sorry to bother you needlessly.Nrswanson (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Nimbley6

I take on board your comments in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nimbley6/Archive#Report date April 7 2009, 14:53 (UTC). In future, is there any value in applying for an SPI without checkuser, or should I simply go straight to WP:ANI?

Many thanks, and thanks for looking into this report. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Either would do. If you go via ANI, it is helpful to file a non-CU case after the event so that we can keep track of what has gone on. Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that makes sense. I'll note at SPI that a report has been filed at ANI (I'm assuming that this does happen again, unfortunately). Thanks again for your help! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne

A block must've expired - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne. JohnInDC (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Enerelt

Please remove my ID from the list Sockpuppet investigations. Thanks. --Enerelt (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't how it works.

An allegation has been made, and that allegation must be investigated.

All cases are given an initial check, to determine if they are obviously groundless, and if they are found to be groundless, are delisted. This case was NOT found to be obviously groundless (but neither was it found to be proven)

Where a case is unproven, but not obviously groundless (as in your case), the accounts concerned will be notified of the allegation, and invited to comment on it. You should edit the case page to make any comments that you wish to about the case in the appropriate section. Blanking the page doesn't make the allegation go away.

In this case, your comments should make clear whether this IP editor is or is not you. If it is you, you should clarify why you frequently log in and out whilst editing.

Mayalld (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
• Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
• News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
• Dispatches: Valued pictures
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord

I asked there, but I just realised: You're not an admin, so you couldn't have looked at the subsequent links provided.

Would you please relist (un-decline), so that someone else who could look, can do so? - jc37 04:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Gerald Gonzalez

Ohh... As for him, I had quite an extensive experience in dealing with him; he has an LTA page here, which is based on my, as well as several other editors' experiences. These edits are also another proof; we had trouble dealing with his obsession and conflict of interest towards the subject - an admin semi-protected the article, but he still slips through. Sorry if I was a bit too assertive, but I guess I had to do something about this banned user. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Blaming me of being a sockpuppet of User:Suciindia

I am surprised that by being creative on a few pages of interest makes me branded as a puppet. I explained to User:Abd earlier that my interest in these articles are merely coincidental; you can refer my talk page for details. Every edit I made I have commented and tried to discuss in the talk page. I also involved several other editors and administrators into it. Where ever I had to argue with an editor I have sought for mediation and consenses. You can see all this in my talk pages and contributions. I basically tried to protect a page which was being heavily vandalised by a banned User:Kuntan. My initial understanding of the subject came from my readings on India politics. Later, once I saw that there was this vandal attempting to mutilate the page I started keeping RSS alters on SUCI and received several new references and texts. I added them to the article with appropriate citation. But User:Kuntan seems relentless in stripping the page of even cited facts. So please do not fall pray to the arguments of this User:Kuntan and puppets and consider me as a puppet of User:Suciindia. And I have nothing to do with User:Bctcanji or the Swedish IP listed as me --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Really sorry. I thought I made it there. I have pasted it there too. If you deem necessary you can delete this comment.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

RfB: Mayalld

I would like to nominate you for RfB for your amazing efforts to help and maintain Wikipedia! If you are to Deny this nomination, either reply on my talk page, or, if you accept and later change your mind, please deny the nomination on the nomination page. I believe you should be promoted to a bureaucrat for your outstanding contributions, and for your efforts to help Wikipedia! Enjoy! Veraladeramanera (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: SPI cases

Thanks for the note, Mayalld. You probably know the answer to this - what should I do if a closed case makes another unreported sock? Merge, add a comment, make a new case, something else? I couldn't find any documentation of it. Thanks so much, FlyingToaster 17:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: I notice that you redirected the new sock file to the old one, added the text from the redirected investigation to this one, added the new name, and added name again to suspected sock list. Sorry for all the trouble, but that might answer my question - that the page that was archived should be updated with new information and thus becomes current. Is that right? FlyingToaster 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct!

1. If the case has actually been closed, and consists of nothing more than the {{SPIarchive notice}} at the top, just file a new case at the same page (don't use 2nd, 3rd etc) using the input boxes on the main WP:SPI page.
2. If the case has been dealt with, but not closed, add the additional detail, and add {{Clerk Request}} with a comment to draw attention to the change.
3. If the case is closed but not yet archived, delete the {{SPIclose}} and proceed as in point 2

If you are ever unsure, click on the IRC link in the instructions (opens in the browser) and say !clerk to get instant assistance from a friendly clerk! Mayalld (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Woot! Thanks, that's very helpful! FlyingToaster 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

re Your Message

Hi Mayalld, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have posted questions at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Audiophonic_visual_isolation and Wikipedia:Deletion review#Abdulfez which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to those discussions to answer them? Stifle (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/General Tojo

I made this request because of this comment by User:Lucasbfr last time I reported a sockpuppet of User:General Tojo at WP:AIV. —Snigbrook 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross

Because of the number of accounts used I suggested an IP address or range block, which cannot be done without a checkuser to find the IP addresses used. Any unused accounts are probably too old to have any checkuser results - although I think if they remain unblocked they will be used next (the first three in that group of six are last three accounts to be used). The usernames are obvious enough, and two of the three unused accounts I mentioned refer to specific people (not notable people, per WP:NOT#NEWS, although they were involved in incidents that were the subject of newspaper coverage) so could be blocked for inappropriate usernames. —Snigbrook 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:RfB

I understand your answer, and I must say, I accept it. I can see why you may not want to run for RfB: Very high expectations; Too many tasks to do; Too many things to edit. I accept your answer, and that I can see why you don't want to run for RfB. Cheers! Veraladeramanera (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits in the SPI case

Sorry, wasn't aware. Just wanted to improve legibility. Won't do it again. See you. The Ogre (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it vandalism

?PirateSmackK (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism because only SPI clerks can endorse or decline a case. You are not a clerk, and cannot decline a case. Mayalld (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:VAND didn't say that its vandalism to do that. Anyway how do I become a clerk? PirateSmackK (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in theory, you ask a current clerk to take you on as a trainee. Given your current antics, it isn't going to happen. Mayalld (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Are there other clerks who are bit more patient and assuming good faith than you? PirateSmackK (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The very first time you did this, I warned you not to do it with a note that explained that only clerks were allowed to do this. Your response was to do it again (and again and again). Clerking requires a sound knowledge of procedure and of Wikipedia Policy. Your edits since you arrived on Wikipedia seem to be characterised by a determination to get your own way rather than a determination to learn how to do things the correct way. Mayalld (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it was the usual template I didn't bother reading till the end (I read now). A non-templated message would have worked better. I saw that two cases were pending in that section so I decided to use the {endorse}/ decline template to help out like others were doing. Are there any other clerks or its just you? PirateSmackK (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are other clerks, and you should feel free to contact them. As to the message, you really ought to read messages, templated or not, before deleting them. If you delete a message, you are assumed to have read it. If you wish to "help out" on a process, you need to be sure what the rules are for helping out. On SPI the rules are simple, endorse/decline is reserved to clerks. Mayalld (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a poor understanding of "vandalism" and are too bitey. PirateSmackK (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire, I understand that deliberately doing something that you know (or ought to know) is disruptive is vandalism. Mayalld (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that only people labelled "clerk" can use those templates for {endorse}/{decline} (hurray for wikipedia's not being a bureaucracy). Assumption of bad faith right off[1] just shows your poor judgement. PirateSmackK (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that you seem to be able to quote policy at people off the cuff when it suits you to do so, but that your whole edit history has consisted of making numerous errors that would not be expected from somebody with your grasp of policy.

As to my level 1 vandalism warning straight off (a level 1 vandalism warning doesn't actually use the word vandalism in the text, and per WP:UTM all level 1 warnings carry an assumption of good faith), such warnings are a judgement call. In your case, your brief edit history already showed several instances of problematic behaviour, including warnings both templated and not templated, and a worrying tendency to simply delete warnings without apparently reading them. It appears to me that you have a worrying tendency to just do whatever you feel like without thinking about whether this is the right way to do things. Wikipedia is not an anarchy, and even accepting that your edits were in good faith, several of them have been disruptive. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold in their editing, but of prime importance is WP:BRD Making a bold edit isn't a huge problem, even if it is a wrong edit, because it can always be reverted. If your edit is reverted, the next step is discuss. Having been reverted, try to find out why, don't simply try to re-do the edit. Mayalld (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You identified' my edit as vandalism when I first made the edit here[2]. PirateSmackK (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)