Jump to content

User talk:DoRD/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

McAusten sock

You blocked this user last week Special:Contributions/Fairy_Hills. This person (originally User:McAusten) has been vandalising the same talk page for six years, this is probably yet another Special:Contributions/Soup_Führer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.214.167 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The obvious sockpuppet of someone is now blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Vicious cycle: A long-term vandal gaming the system and problems regarding the SPI cases

Hi DoRD, I hope you have enough time to read the report and problems regarding a SPI case below. The case is a bit complicated, since the editor is a " professional" and knows well how to escape "hard-block". 

There are ongoing problems regarding a disruptive hateful editor who was indefinitely blocked last year per WP:NOTHERE. Hassan Rebell, justifiably, was blocked by @JzG: on 14 December. After his "long" messages and apologies on his talk page, user @Beeblebrox: gave him a "chance" and reduced his block on 24 January. However, only a few weeks later, I noticed that he began editing thorugh his "confirmed" ips (see Rebell's talk page) with exactly the same agenda [1 for months 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9 (...) After his "Swiss" ips became "notorious", he abandoned them for a while and since June 2016, he has been editing from Germany 1, 2. As I proved on the SPI with dozens of diffs, those German and Swiss ips belong to the long-term vandal Lrednuas Senoroc/Hassan Rebell. Plus, the checkuser also agreed that those ips belong to the same editor. However, no action was taken since his sock account was  already "soft-blocked" for impersonating user:Kintetsubuffalo and he has not edited via his other account, Rebell, for a long time, despite he is very active with various ips and proxies. As I mentioned on the SPI case, the sockmaster "intentionally" impersonating other editors in order to escape "hard-block". It seems to me that, impersonating other editors is the "tactic" of this sockmaster: When his disruptive/suspicious accounts are noticed, they are first blocked for impersonating other editors, before blocked for socking or disruptive editing. And thereby, they become "soft-blocked", instead of "hard-blocked" Exactly the same problem has occured in the 09 January 2016 case (Kinetsubuffalo). Plus, he uses this situation as an excuse. Two of his accounts were blocked for impersonating other editors, it is obviously not a "coincidence", but a tactic. 

The same disruptive sockmaster was warned many times by various users for his problematic, "hateful" edits targeting a minority ethnic group: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (...) And finally, he was warned @Doug Weller: for the same reason 1, 2. Despite all these warnings and SPI cases, exactly the same problem continues 1. The last SPI case was closed on 22 February, and he has came with a "new" ip range on 25 February. On the SPI case, I have proved with multiple diffs that the proxy ip "81.253.60.172", German ips and Hassan Rebell are the same editor and thereby the "new" ip "130.180.67.198" from Germany, obviously the same vandal. In other words, he is still active on WP and continues editing as if nothing has happened. If he had used an account, he would have been banned 100 times, but no one can do anything because he is abusing plenty of ip ranges and only "soft-blocked" because of "impersonating" other editors. This is unfair. 

In order to solve this problem I request:

  • Re-blocking for Hassan Rebell, since he continues "exactly" (even worse) the same behavior/edits that was led to the block and he is still active though he edits when logged-out. Also, I request hard-block for his impersonator accounts Lrednuas Senoroc and Kinetsubuffalo, since it is not a "coincidence", but a tactic. 
  • Semi-protecting certain articles that were often targeted by him. Since he uses "plenty of" ip ranges and proxies, the range block does not work and semi-proctecting is the most effective solution in this case. In fact, he edited numberless articles but it is impossible to protect all of them. But, at least, certain articles that are constantly targeted by him should be semi-protected. Namely: Kurdish women, History of the Kurds, Origin of the Kurds, Kurdish mythology, Kurdish culture, Persecution of Christians, Christianity in the Middle East and Christianity in Iraq. 

Bests, 46.221.220.189 (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, I have contacted some admins and Vanjagenije regarding the problem but, maybe because they are busy, they did not interest with it. I have explained my concerns on Vanja's page. I hope you are also agree. 46.221.220.189 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the free time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is very limited of late. Other experienced admins and editors have commented extensively on the case page, and since I haven't had a chance to look into either the material presented above or in the case, there really isn't anything I can add. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you are very busy and i know that the report and the case (09 January 2017) are a bit complicated. But it is really a serious problem. I hope you read it when have a time. Because i spend hours to wrote it. And no, only Vanja commented on the case. Actually Vanja suggested me to contact Beeblebrox, who reduced the vandal's block. So I'll contact him regarding the problem. Actually the main problem is Wikipedia's policies regarding logged-out editings/sockings and disruptive ip vandals. As far as i can see, current policies do not work on professional vandals. Thus i am going to submit a Rfc about it on a proper project page. Cheers, 46.221.190.78 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The post you just moved

I don't think this move was right, DoRD. I know HT's post in a sense interrupted the questions and answers about the technical stuff, but it was posted immediately below the post by Doug that I believe HT was responding to. It's quite unmoored in the place you moved it to. Move Doug's post too, perhaps, to keep them together? Because Doug's post, too, was in the middle of the (irrelevant) technical stuff, which you have collapsed. Maybe you didn't see it? Bishonen | talk 21:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC).

Sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't catch that - I'll head back to the talk page momentarily. Thanks for the heads up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

LTA thoughts

Related to the SPI we were just both active on, please see User:Brianhe/Denver LTA and tell me if you think there's any merit. - Brianhe (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good work, Brianhe! You can probably add the range 66.87.150.0/23, currently blocked both locally and globally. I first came across this specimen a year ago when it vandalized KSCS and assorted other radio/TV stations. Favonian (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what Favonian said. I've just come across this LTA recently, so I didn't have a name to tie it to, but this is a good start. Thanks to both of you! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

IP block

Hi DoRD! I don't believe we've met but I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question related to a block you made. On March 2, you blocked this IP as a {{webhostblock}}, and your comment here suggests that this was done as part of a range/proxy block. Does this action, in itself, mean that RFC !votes made by that IP should be struck, or comments made by that IP removed from noticeboards and talkpages? This is causing considerable controversy here and here.

Essentially, several editors are arguing that because you blocked the IP as a proxy, its contributions are invalid, while others (including myself) are pointing to WP:PROXY, which states that while poxies can be blocked at any time, and "this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Can you clarify whether that particular IP's contributions should be considered invalid (ie, struck or reverted), based on your block?

The full context here is that some people suspect the IP of being a sock: an initial SPI was closed as "inconclusive" here, and another one was recently opened, but has not got any clerk/checkuser attention just yet. I don't expect you to wade into that (I'm sure the SPI experts will get to it eventually), but can you clarify whether your rangeblock is in itself a reason to strike the IP's vote in this RFC? Thanks very much! Fyddlestix (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Fyddlestix. My apologies, but for more than one reason, the main one being the fact that I have used CheckUser on that range, I'm going to have to decline to answer. Also, I would normally have no issue commenting in an SPI case like that, but for the same reason, I won't be this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, no problem - thanks DoRD! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kazaro

Rangeblock of underlying IPs possible? This guy isn't going to give up... --NeilN talk to me 02:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep - a CU has made some blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 02:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, NeilN, the latest sock is on a couple of mobile ranges, which I'm not wiling to block at the moment, so more socks will likely appear. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Will block as they pop up. --NeilN talk to me 15:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

IgnorantArmies

I am not quite sure how to say this, but I think you've made a horrible mistake blocking IgnorantArmies. He has been a long-term editor here who has made something like 45,000 edits and written several GAs, he's never had any problems at all. Did you perhaps confuse IgnorantArmies with a different account? Looking at the (now archived) SPI his account seems to have nothing in similarity with the other accounts. Jenks24 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jenks24. When I stumbled onto the IgnorantArmies account in my investigation, I was surprised to find such a prolific editor. Even though the checkuser results were unequivocal, I asked for and received a double-check of my results from another CU before taking any action. I (and the other CU, I'm sure) looked for any way that there could be an innocent explanation for the CU results, but there just wasn't one. Two accounts, with identical CU data, editing so many of the same pages, makes the chance that they're unrelated vanishingly small. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to block him? IgnorantArmies has been one of the most phenomenal editors on Australian topics for the last year, has pretty much single-handedly fleshed out an entire state's political history with well-written and in-depth coverage, and has been completely collegial with other editors. He is an absolutely huge loss to the project. I feel like it'd be a far better solution to at least give him the chance to keep the IgnorantArmies account if he knocks off the other nonsense: there is nothing much to be gained from trying to make an example of it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I do believe that a block was necessary. Not only was there inappropriate use of two accounts to edit many of the same articles and to influence discussions, there was the prohibited use of several other accounts and logged-out editing. Out of respect for IgnorantArmies's privacy, policy doesn't allow me to discuss the details of the logged-out editing, some of which weighed heavily on my decision. I understand that IgnorantArmies has been a prolific and valuable editor, but until several concerns are resolved, I feel that all of the accounts should stay blocked. This doesn't have to be permanent, of course, because I also feel that a successful Standard offer appeal is very possible. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

DoRD - I too am concerned about this. Yes, you have access to all the CU/privacy stuff us drones don't, but is there no other way to sort this out than IA going via UTRS/Arbcom? I want to keep good faith on your part, but it's hard to do when the details can't be elaborated upon and IA can't request a regular unblock. Is this something another admin can investigate? Or via AN/ANI? Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Lugnuts. The only way the case can be reviewed is by looking at the CU data, so I'm not sure that a public noticeboard discussion would have much value. I welcome review by other CUs, and since Arbs are all CUs, that's still the best path to take, in my opinion. Any other non-Arb CU is free to double check (triple check, actually) my findings as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks DoRD. Hopefully this is sorted out for the best. I don't say this enough, but IA is one damn fine editor. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@The-Pope: (In response to your comments) Double/triple check your CU data, it must be closer to "blood type" level of a match than DNA. I realize that no one is happy about this situation, including me, but I already double checked and had another CU verify my results before taking action. I'm not sure that the blood type/DNA analogy works here, but if anything, the match is closer to the latter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking through both of their contributions, and to me it looks like 2 accounts on the same computer/router/local network. I have no idea of his editing/living/working situation, and he'll have to convince someone, somehow if a second person shares his computer, but correct me if I'm wrong, but multiple accounts on the one computer aren't banned, right? The edits on 1 Feb seem to be the shortest time between using both accounts, and do share a topic (Winter X Games XXI). Was this the period used for the checkuser? As CU can't see who's hitting the keyboard, have any other methods been tried - word use frequency, edit summary style etc? The-Pope (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
You're correct - we (unlike the CIA, apparently) can't see who is actually using a device, but per the message on IgnorantArmies's talk, they don't know who Bozzio is, so it's not two people sharing the same device. While I haven't done the detailed analysis of the edits that you mention, the timing of the accounts' edits and details from the CU data are very convincing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and no, it isn't prohibited for two (or more) people to share a device or connection, but they should avoid editing the same topics, and typically should note on their user pages that they're sharing (or notify ArbCom if a public note isn't a good idea). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

IP block

Hi, you seem to have blocked the IP [range]. I'm having a problem when trying to edit when logged in if using my mobile data. This would make my editing on the go tricky when I don't have a WiFi connection. Is there anything you can do to prevent me being blocked from editing even when I'm logged in because my IP seems to be the same as one you have blocked? Polyamorph (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Polyamorph: Unfortunately, that range has been used quite a bit by an abusive troll, hence the block. However, because you've had difficulties with it, I modified the block so that logged-in editors are able to edit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for unblocking my user name on a list of blocked IP range.

Hi, DoRD

I been affected by range of IP blocked users "105.168.0.0/18" on Wikiversity and on many other projects like wikimedia, preventing to make any edition, so, since i'm not able to edit even on my talk page on those wikis in order to insert a request for unblocking, i can't find an easy way to ask to administrators in general to unblock my account, so i'm asking you to comunicate or find a way to put me on IP block exempt user, so that i can continue editing on those wiki projects.

Thank you, regards

Dorivaldo de C. M. dos Santos (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The wider range, 105.168.0.0/17, is blocked locally by another admin, but you already have IP block exemption here. However, 105.158.0.0/18 is globally blocked, for which you will need global IP block exemption to bypass. Since English WP admins have no control over global blocks, you will need to make a request on the Meta Steward request page to obtain that right. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Amazon proxy IP... Again

The Amazon proxy Ip is back and its participating in climate change RfCs as well as previous topic areas. [[1]] Springee (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!

The editor is back but now using a public IP. Can this editor be declared disruptive? New IP... [[2]] Springee (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for your response to my request for help a few days ago. The information you gave me was very helpful, and helped me to make a definite decision on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'll be sure to use a YGM next time. ​—DoRD (talk)​

Dammit!

I had an arbcom enforcement request all filled out and ready to go! :) Thanks for the assist. [3] --NeilN talk to me 20:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Umm...I'm sorry? ;) That one was way too obvious to ignore, though. Anyway, you're welcome! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

re: email

User:Thekohser, aka Mr. 2001 as Jimbo identifies him sometimes. Or perhaps somebody doing a good imitation of him (same gripes, same style) per WP:BANREVERT. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I'm glad to have someone else say so as well. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

PMA IP address

Hello DoRD,

You recently declined an unblock on the IP address of PMA from someone at our school. This message is being left from a Wikimedia account operated by school officials. I am the director of technical operations at PMA, and from the contributions of our school IP, it appears that there has only been 2 or 3 instances of vandalism, and two severe edit wars on Drawbridge and Bascule Bridge. I don't understand why the IP address has to be blocked for 6 months, without talk page access and as a logged-in user hardblock. Please advise. Presentation of Mary Academy (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Addressed elsewhere. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, DoRD. 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.

Yintan  14:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yintan: Received, but I'm away from my computer, so please send your request through the normal channel. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I'm back now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Baseless

I completely disagree that my report was "baseless", fortunately I took a screenshot before you tried to hide what happened here. Sorry, but it seems clear to me that complaints about paid editing are taken very seriously, but editors who are concerned about "the other socks" who routinely abuse process on important articles are faced with intimidation and various forms of systemic process abuse. We've all seen the one edit accounts in politics areas - somehow these socks are never uncovered, but anyone who posts an article about an unknown pop singer is immediately found and banned. On top of it, for some reason administrators invariable feel the need to sling insults at editors in the process who have the gall to complain about the routine abuse they encounter while trying to legit develop encyclopedic content. We're only human, you know. Seraphim System (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh, not to interfere with matters above my pay grade, but you do know that DoRD didn't delete or hide anything, right? Everything related to the SPI is still visible and referenceable in the page's history. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
That's good to know, at least the record will still be around to answer any questions future me may have about why our ancient civilization prioritized Kapurpur, Jaunpur over the stream protection rule - but it's not only that. You have a way of doing things here, and I can take no for an answer - but the personal insults and gaslighting are uncalled for, it's been a long day and I'm not stupid, I know I'm interacting with a legion of sock puppets everyday. A polite no isn't too much to ask for. Seraphim System (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System, you're pretty new here, or at least your account is, so I'll just point you to some recommended reading. First, this is one of the most important guidelines to keep in mind when interacting with other editors. As far as seeing sockpuppets everywhere, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Lastly, please be aware of this before making any further accusations against long established editors (who are clearly not the same person). Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I mean, there's no way to *know* that with certainty, even with the Checkuser tool that (respected) editors like DoRD have access to. I'm not denying that gaslighting is a real phenomenon, or even that it happens on Wikipedia from time to time, and I'm certainly not denying that sockpuppeting happens (in fact, I blocked a sockmaster and their socks just today, as DoRD can attest, since they helpfully processed the SPI). But I'm not sure it's happening here: maybe people are just disagreeing with you? I mean, I have no horse in this race and don't know either Jytdog or StAnselm from Adam (though I guess you have only my word on that), but your SPI honestly is pretty thin, to say the least: as I read it, it basically boils down to "these two editors agree with each other about this one issue on this one article, thus they must be one and the same". We'd generally expect a much more substantial pattern of collusion to justify an SPI. Just because two users agree with each other doesn't mean they're run by the same person, and just because some users disagree with another doesn't mean the group is trying to gaslight the one, y'know? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Havoc Apache

Thanks for deleting. Don't know Y I did not tag the one about a person under G10. Dlohcierekim 15:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I just deleted a bunch of pages mass created by a drawer full of socks, so whichever one you're talking about...I'm glad to be of service. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for those explanations.--61.224.5.200 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Return of checkuser blocked IP

Don't know if the current block should be extended. [4] --NeilN talk to me 21:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there is more disruption from that range than good, so I've extended and CUized the block. Thanks for the alrert. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird usernames

Hey, DoRD et al., I've come across some weird usernames that have been getting registered today:

All created within a few minutes of each other. They're pretty clearly the work of the same person, but said person hasn't actually done anything with them yet other than creating them, and just creating several accounts with weird names is not strictly against the rules. Is there some sockmaster or something who has an MO like this? I don't really have anything to go on to file an official SPI, but if anyone has an idea of who they might be... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems a slight stretch, but the now-blocked Rohrbruch auf dem Scheißhaus could be related; created in the same timeframe and now blocked. Enough to CU/just block the rest? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper, I've blocked the lot as  Confirmed sleepers.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ponyo. you were tied for first on the list of people to contact, i swear Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I step away from the 'pedia for a couple of hours and this is what I miss. Thanks Writ Keeper and Ponyo for taking care of business. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
You're the star. I'm just following behind, catching a spark or two.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about ip block exemptions - I am going to be in Turkey for an extended period of time. For obvious reasons, I will have to edit through proxies - I am not sure how this works or more specifically, what kind of exemption I would need (or even how I would ask for it behind the block.) There was also the one incident where I used a second account, which I am really sorry about, and I don't think it's representative of the work I've done and would like to continue - do you think that will that be a problem when requesting an exemption? Seraphim System (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The details about IP block exemption are here. I don't know what VPN service you'll be using, but you may find that it has not been blocked. If it is, however, you will still be able to edit your talk page or access WP:UTRS to request IPBE. Yes, the use of the other account could pose a problem, but if it was a one time mistake, it may not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Seraphim System (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Procedural question

Would requesting checkuser regarding good hand, bad hand here be considered fishing? Tiderolls 21:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

After I commented on the user's talk earlier, I ran the vandal IP just to make sure they weren't the same. I didn't find any accounts on the IP address, so I decided to AGF. Of course, that doesn't prove that they're unrelated, but that's as far as I want to take it for now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, Tide rolls, if renaming of the account is needed, I can take care of that as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert Young

I'm sure you won't remember it, but you were involved in a sockpuppet case involving vastly inflated autobiographical claims of a sportsman who, at that time, fell well below notability thresholds. The same man now has a very different personal and sporting history, again arising from his own evidence, being presented in an article. Non-admin editors cannot edit from an informed point of view as to the man's reliability without there being some presentation of his previous claims, which only an admin can unearth. Sadly, admins who have involved themselves in the situation thus far have wilfully remained uninformed: would you be willing to present a summary of the sockpuppet claims in the talk page so that readers and editors have grounds for coming to an informed judgement.

With thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of experienced editors and admins there, and I see no reason to involve myself. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
None of them have declared themselves willing to even look at his previous deleted claims. I hoped that as you had done so in the past, you might help bring that to light for a fuller consideration. Kevin McE (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
First off, this version was started by Drmies, not by some sockpuppet. Second, saying that the admins there have wilfully remained uninformed is an assumption of bad faith. If you want a direct answer to whether they've looked at the sock implications, ask them a direct question, either on the article talk page, or on their talk pages. I don't see anything in the recent history of the article that suggests sockpuppetry, and since I have no other interest in the subject, I have no desire to become involved there. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
My point was that because they haven't informed themselves by reading the previous articles (and I have asked them on their talk pages, and can only take their refusal to answer as a no, and a position I can think of no better description of than wilful ignorance), they are not alert to the claims that Young has made about himself in the past, and because they cannot compare that with his more recent version of his sporting and personal history, they cannot see the inconsistency in his story, so they take the more recent at face value. They threaten to discipline me for questioning his veracity, without considering the evidence of his inconsistency. I really can't understand why it is so hard to find an admin willing to consider the evidence. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

3Artiklar

Just curious, since I got a friendly helping hand from 3Artiklar not too long ago: how did they come to be blocked? Awien (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That account, along with several others, was found to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Awien (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, DoRD! I came here to ask a similar question, as I was thinking of speedy-nominating this non-topic as G5. Were all nine users you blocked today similarly connected? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the accounts I blocked between 11:09 and 11:30 today are the same. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in

this message I got a little bit ago. (I'm not watching your page, so ping me if you reply)ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, MjolnirPants. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ENGVAR?

That didn't tell me anything...if we use spelling used by each country, shouldn't we use US spelling for something usually found in the US? is this like a taxonomy thing? I'm confused... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyden (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct - I apparently didn't notice the habitat, so I have self reverted. My apologies. ​—DoRD (talk)​
Ok. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyden (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It does seem kind of arbitrary to me, though...it is an ocean-dwelling creature so it isn't like it's American or British or whatever else... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyden (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is Great

Heads up: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A proud Tel Aviver. Just in case you wanna change the block reasoning ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I would have found it eventually, but that does save me some time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Re one of your previous blocks

Persistent SP what you blocked before with a fairly wide IP rangeblock is back; see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janagewen . Only one IP so far in this round but past similar ones were all in 175.19.x.1 where x was in the range 63 through 67. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it, but since there's only one edit from this range so far, it's too early for a rangeblock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks! Jeh (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

Will the SPI on HughD uncover any other connection, or just between the parties named, and, if not, what should I do next if this comes up negative and does not appear to be an artifact of something outside Wiki, as one of the participants has claimed? Anmccaff (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If whoever investigates the accounts finds a connection, it will likely be revealed. I'm not particularly familiar with HughD myself, so a quick glance at the edits doesn't reveal anything to me. As for what to do next, that'll depend on the outcome of the investigation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly Bertrand101

? I just wanted to ask if this looks like him and is worth bringing to SPI. Thanks for your help, GABgab 17:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

trying

Hello, DoRD. 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.

JarrahTree 12:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - the issue has been taken care of. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question

You blocked Herbert McCallum based on checkuser evidence. Since you know, may I ask who the master is, since I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate (already blocked) is also McCallum. I don't know who the true master is, so I couldn't really start a SPI. It would be real helpful if you could tell me who the true master is, if there is one, just in case they come back (and if you don't want to due to privacy concerns, then that's fine by me as well). SkyWarrior 03:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The most important thing at this point is that they're both blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You overlooked one ...

... edit summary at WP:UAA: Helperbot5 at 16:44UTC. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • this obviously related user might also be of interest, and can be found at 15:58 and 16:14UTC in the page history of UAA. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC) (... provided that I'm correct in assuming that the Favonian one was the one you wanted to remove from the page history)
Thanks, but what I removed was far worse than what remains, and if I was to try to get rid of all of those, I'd be here at last all day. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There are more of interest in the WP:AIV history, especially one really vile one (in the cluster I reported). Thanks, GABgab 17:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks...I don't know why I didn't think to look there, too. Anyway, those revisions are taken care of. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DoRD. You have new messages at Ponyo's talk page.
Message added 23:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GABgab 23:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested... GABgab 23:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It smells a bit sockish, alright, but I'm not up to doing any digging tonight. Perhaps tomorrow, if Ponyo doesn't get there first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for putting up with me GABgab 23:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, do you know of any sockmasters interested in the Philippines military? 'cause I found BatangMaynila88, BatangMaynilenyo88 and LakingAntipolenyo88, which look very similar. Thanks, GABgab 15:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
So, it's been a long, lazy several days here. I'd forgotten about the bit on Ponyo's page, to be honest, but this? It'll be a couple more days, probably, but I will look into it. As for the chatter on your talk...I'd !vote for that. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@GeneralizationsAreBad: Okay, so for those three accounts, nothing rings a bell, and CU isn't helpful (except to prove that they're  Technically indistinguishable), but I see users from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chewygum/Archive in the article history here. Ponyo worked that case, so maybe she'll remember something about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Might want to throw in LakingKamaynilaan88 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I will go ahead and file an SPI tomorrow (?) after I can compare behavior against Chewygum. Thanks again, GABgab 00:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, that account is on a different range, but I'd call it  Confirmed to the others. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

IP socks

Hi, thanks for taking care of this. Is it worthwhile or even proper to open sock investigations where all the candidates are IPs?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, this case could very well have been intentional socking, but from my experience with that ISP, it's most likely not. So yes, if it looks like sockpuppetry, it's worthwhile to report it, and we'll do our best to sort it out. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite blocking of my account

I wish to inform you that my older account Vortex2345 was blocked on 13th July, 2017 .I was unable to edit even my talk page. Account creation from my range of IP was also blocked. I request that you unblock the account or at least give a reason as to why it was blocked indefinitely, so that I am able to rectify my error before asking this question again. My latest edits, before being blocked were made on the pages "Immanuel Kant", and "Murder on the Orient Express", both of which have been, to the best of my knowledge, not controversial and, (I hope) informative. Please let me know my mistake and give me a chance so that I am able to return to editing as I was really hoping to expand the articles on the Inductive and Electromeric effects. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibismuth2346 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Now this account is blocked as well.
@NinjaRobotPirate: FYI, these accounts are all  Confirmed to one another, and this account is on the same range:
​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess my range block timed out again. He'll probably be back tomorrow. Well, at least it gives me something to look forward to. "Why was Bibismuth2346 blocked? I didn't do anything!" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Paul Noble returns

Hi DoRD, User:Paul Noble, whom you blocked as a sockpuppet, has returned with a new user name. Who is the master in this case? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

They're related to this case, also mentioned in the section above. @Cpt.a.haddock: FYI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Should they not be added to the sock investigation page?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

You might want to take a look at Johnny3887 re Mikey3778.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

...aaaand blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Need your perusal

Hey DoRD, please see this history. I went to change GorillaWarfare's block so that I could revoke talk page access and thought to hardblock the single IP. I realize now that this took effect over the whole range though. I also see you had a checkuser block in place before. I do have a hardblock with talk page access revoked throughout that range. Boing! said Zebedee has since made the block for the single IP that I tried to implement. Would there be too much collateral damage to leave hardblocked? I have to step out for a bit so if either you or GW wants to change anything about my block, please go ahead and do so. I should be back shortly. My apologies for the error.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the talk page abuse and revoked talk page access, but didn't look any deeper into it than that - I'm happy for anyone to amend it in any way that seems appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter and Boing! said Zebedee: Yeah, hardblocks on that range aren't feasible due to collateral damage, so I softened it, but left talk revoked as an intermediate measure. I also unblocked the single address because it's covered by the range, and he'll easily hop to another one long before the two weeks is up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Orchomen

Hey, also pinging Sro23 and Callmemirela - just reported Arubangle for recreating spi/Amaury etc...and also requested an EF. Are there any other behaviors that they exhibit frequently other than creating SPIs in your name? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added fresh CU results to the case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I also just went to salt the Amaury case, but Nick already handled it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help guys. As for the issue at hand, the master used to revert our edits out of the blue. We're talking articles they've never touched and a handful of edits. Now, this was at the beginning of the original Orchomen and when they started socking. Now, they will easily create new accounts or use new IPs (sometimes go back to an old one) and just ping us. There are occasional accounts or IPs where they would actually edit. It's mostly just pinging at this point. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 14:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: 172.56.12.247

Might want to revoke their talk page access as well. They're clearly abusing it. Cheers! Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed.  Done. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by Leon103102

Hello, Leon103102 appears to be using more IP addresses to evade being blocked. The user has used 73.93.153.96, 73.93.153.80, and 73.93.155.70. Is there any way to keep this user from vandalizing/adding unsourced content? Thanks! Stinger20 (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Leon103102. If you have convincing evidence of block evasion, I suggest starting a sockpuppet investigation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I wrongly assumed because you blocked the user you had been aware of the situation. I added a sock puppet request, thanks! Stinger20 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. They were blocked by another admin, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Stinger20 and Huntster: ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm now watching the SPI filing, but I don't know what else is needed of me. Not really my area of experience. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

deletetion of Hachelbich (Roman camp)

Hi!

You've just deleted the article while is I was contesting on its talk page. Could you undelete please?

I understand the problem Brunodamm and his sock puppets, but this particular article itself had no issue and the content was properly sourced, uncontentious and matched roughly the content of the German version, which has nothing to do with Brunodamm.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, I have restored it, after some difficulty with the updated Move interface, to User:Kmhkmh/Hachelbich (Roman camp). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take it from there then and move it to article space after some proof reading.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Austrian Romance

Thanks for deleting Austrian Romance. Would it be possible to user draftify the deleted Talk page Talk:Austrian Romance to User talk:Mathglot/Austrian Romance? There were some arguments I made there yesterday that I would like to have access to, as they may also apply to Moselle Romance and perhaps other, similar articles. I don't care about page history, just the comments, so cut/paste is fine if that's easier. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Mathglot (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

What to do about IP socking

Perhaps you remember the saga of Oneshotofwhiskey, the indeffed sockpuppeteer and vandal that attempted to impersonate me on numerous occasions last year—including via the confirmed sockpuppets AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am and You'llNeverCare. Guess what? A new Colorado–based IP has appeared at the article that started it all, Dinesh D'Souza, to reinstate many of Oneshot's edits (such as an unnecessary "Marriage scandal" subsection). Simultaneously, another IP geolocating to Colorado and rather obviously operated by the same person has railed against me personally, calling me a "troll" and referencing my personal history in ways strikingly reminiscent of Oneshot. Sure, reinstating Oneshot's edits at Dinesh D'Souza may not by itself be convincing WP:DUCK proof, and you could say the same thing about a "random" IP stalking me and denigrating me as a "troll," but what are the odds of a truly random IP unconnected to Oneshot doing both?

Frankly, Oneshot seems to have discovered a loophole allowing him to sock, in that IPs (unlike named accounts) are immune from checkuser requests, while admins often seem loath to act against them absent impossibly high standards of evidence. Even then, IPs rapidly shift and are usually not blocked for very long. If I were to request auto-confirmed protection for Dinesh D'Souza, my guess is that I would be turned down because the degree of disruption caused by Oneshot's IPs is not yet at a sufficiently high level, but that seems like the only viable course of action to flush him out or get him to stop. Finally, even if you can't take any action at this time, I still hope and expect that you will briefly reply and explain why. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the first anon based on behavior and history with that range, but there's not enough evidence to block the other one. We can (and do) run checks on IP addresses all the time, we're just not generally free to reveal any connection between IP addresses and named accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
A new Colorado–based IP appeared at Dinesh D'Souza to again reinstate Oneshot's edits less than an hour after I reverted the IP you just blocked: [5]TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we drop the sleuthing. The edit itself is an improvement in text and sourcing. I reinstated it. As to whether the page should be protected, I don't know or care. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the validity of the edit, to be honest, but if you're taking ownership of it, that's fine. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Another very obvious Oneshot sock: [6]. Do I even need to explain the similarities?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It's become clear that blocking the IP socks isn't effective, and since I have no interest in wading into any disputes over that article, I'm going to step aside and suggest that you take it to RFPP. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I just saw your name at ANI, and saw that you haven't been notified, I have no complaint against you. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tornado chaser. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

INC

Hey old friend. Sorry to put you out at all. I'll only sock over here for good purposes. I've got to get two teeth out tomorrow morning, so I won't be around tomorrow, though the painkillers make it hard to read the classics I'm used to, so some wiki time will be needed on the weekend. I'm just glad I'm dynamic. I tested ProcseeBot, and it even blocks transparent proxies! Imagine my surprise. Take care, INC. 47.33.7.25 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll just say that I'm very disappointed in the way things unfolded, and even more so with the way things are heading. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
INeverCry, you said that you'd only sock over here for good purposes, so what's with the crap on so many user talk pages last night? (Don't answer, just stop.) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Immitator

You have an imitator. I just reverted a fake "sock block" notice on Rambling Man's talk page, and now I see he's left one on mine, ascribed to you, but actually from User:DeRD1. I'll scratch my head and figure out where it should be reported, but thought you should have a heads up right away. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Favonian and Sagacious Phil (too lazy to link) got on it in record time. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Drmargi. That's at least the second of their trolling/impersonation accounts this weekend. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw that. It just shows to go you that you're getting someone's attention! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for service to the project and its editors. People like you make it run. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to look at a request relating to a Checkuser block of yours.

At User talk:2602:306:BD89:F550:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 there's a request for help creating an account to get round a checkuser block which you placed on the IP address. Apparently some bug or other is preventing the person in question from using the "request an account" method. Could you have a look at it and see whether you think the request should be granted? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JBW. There have been a number of disruptive accounts on that address/range, and the edits on that talk are a technical match. I am not aware of any issues with the ACC tool, but I do see an incomplete request for that username.
Okay, I asked one of the ACC admins and they said that it may be a transient issue, but even if the request makes it into the system, it'll be rejected. I wouldn't recommend creating any accounts from that range, to be honest. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. On the basis of what you have said I have declined the unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Need advice please and help

Hi DorD, I left you a message earlier today but later I noticed my I.P. has been renewed. So I will post on your page and mine just to be sure you get this,

How does one proceed with a prolific Conflict of Interest/ Vandalism case without revealing the identity of the perpetrators? Assume the COI has been sustained over the course of years, and proof of affiliation with biased, misleading, or self published sources is at hand.

Thanks.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:122.59.228.76


Also what is "Possible self promotion in userspace?" and why are some revisions deleted? I'm not promoting anything, can you explain the edits? I couldn't have posted anything anyway as I was blocked for a couple of days.... Or does that mean someone is looking into my COI complaint? I have no idea how this works... :)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?diff=794820807&oldid=794685636&title=User_talk:122.59.228.76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.27.65 (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2017‎ (UTC)

Re

Is there any reason you have not replied to my messages? Should I just contact another Admin or Arbcomm to deal with this or what?? You were quick to block me for a simple mistake but not so much to help..

I'll create a user account. Might be back.. Edit nvm I'll find someone myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.27.65 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2017‎ (UTC)

Is there any reason you have not replied to my messages? See Hurricane Harvey. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

^What do you mean "see hurricane Harvey" - were you busy? Anyway I've written to Arbcom.

P.S. This is my new account. Rich Coburn (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see you were in the hurricane? OK That's a good excuse. :) Rich Coburn (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

IP vandal

Thanks for blocking 125.207.83.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This appears to be the same vandal as 109.98.171.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). DuncanHill (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed this at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rapid-fire_vandalism_apparently_on_proxie. DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, I'm stuck on a tablet for the time being, so my usefulness is limited. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

IgnorantArmies

Hi DoRD. If you recall, you blocked this user back in March for sockpuppeting, and I contacted you about this at the time. Without going through all the history of who did what and when, in your opinion, would they be eligible to be unblocked per WP:OFFER, as it's almost six months since the block? If so, is that something they would need to request on their talkpage? Thanks for your help with this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lugnuts. IgnorantArmies will be eligible for a Standard offer appeal on Septembrer 7. The appeal will need to be made by them on their talk page or to ArbCom (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). I don't know whether they're eligible for unblocking yet because I or (preferably) another CheckUser will need to run checks to verify that there haven't been any further violations.
If you're in contact with IgnorantArmies, please encourage them to make an appeal when eligible because I, too, would like to see them return to contributing to the project. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
That's great - thanks for the reply. I'll let IA know. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi DoRD, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and feel free to ask for assistance if you ever need it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

:)

Thanks for doing the stuff you do, just in general. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for the kind words. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoRD/Archive_12&oldid=1149963906"