User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 10

< Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  ... (up to 100)

Diffs for checkuser

Where do I place the diffs for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SA 13 Bro? I'm not sure where they go on the page. Ogress _smash! 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I must be doing this wrong because this is an AGONISING process: finding diffs, sorting them, cutting and pasting... is there a tool I'm missing? I'm still not even sure I did it right and I'm barely half done. Ogress _smash! 01:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: It's OK. I don't know about the tool. But, you don't need to use the {{diff}} template, it is enough just to copy the diff URL, like this: [1]. Although, it is nicer with the template. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

veer

what's wrong in my page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Veersbm (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)

@Veersbm: Apparently, it lacked the WP:Notability. Wikipedia articles need to cite reliable independent sources, so to prove the notability (see: WP:42). I proposed the article for the deletion discussion, but it was later speedily deleted by Yunshui (See: [2]). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not the IP

Your statement: "I'm sure at least one of those IPs is Zozs. IPs are not active any more, so no need to block them. I'm going to issue a formal warning to Zozs. Next time he makes logged-out edits, he'll be blocked. Closing this now."

Is entirely false. I am not any of these IPs and I have just logged in and posted my opinion on the issue. I did not make logged-out edits in that article; you should provide evidence or remove your threats. Zozs (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zozs: Evidence is provided. See here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zozs. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

How is that evidence? That IP came some months later and reverted to the version I had wrote. It happens all the time, in non-protected articles, that an IP participates in an edit war reverting not to a version they had wrote themselves but to a version another editor had wrote which they agree with. Furthermore, if this kind of extremely poor evidence is tolerated: anyone could go to a public computer, and, as an IP, start an edit war reverting to the controversial edit of another editor, then request a sock-puppet investigation with their account, in an attempt to get them blocked. It is open to abuse. Zozs (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zozs: What exactly do you want me to do? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Check my IP, you'll see it's not me. Furthermore please remove the false claim that I used any of these IPs to edit. Zozs (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zozs: I cannot check your IP because I am not a WP:CheckUser. Even CheckUsers are not permitted to publicly reveal other user's IP per privacy reasons. I am not going to to remove the "claim". My claim is based on the provided evidence, and I stick to it. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that I am any of the IPs; there is only evidence that the IPs had similar behaviour to me. You can be "sure" that I am one of the IPs, but that's based on speculations and what your emotions tell you rather than objective indicators. I can be just as sure, because I am myself, that I never made these IP edits on that article. If a CheckUser is needed to check this, then ask a CheckUser before making threats to block an user (in the future) if he repeats something that he never did in the first place. He does not need to publicly reveal my IP. All he needs to do is check that my IP isn't related to the IPs editing that article then publish a statement: "It's the same person as Zozs" or "It's not Zozs". Zozs (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zozs: Well, if CheckUser says that "It's the same person as Zozs", then he reveals your IP, isn't he? Anyway, we are not allowed to use the CheckUser tool on user's request (see: Wikipedia:CheckUser#Policy). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. The problem is this. I am accused of doing something that I have never done based on something that suggests to other people that I have done it, but that does not truly prove it. Furthermore I am threatened of being "blocked" if I do something which I have never done in the first place again (so that other person could do it again and I'd be blocked). How can this issue be solved in a way that doesn't completely ignore my rights? Zozs (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zozs: Well, I don't see any of your rights being abused. You are not punished in any way. Other people are free to accuse you. You cannot stop others users accusing you, especially if they have some evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

What's with your editing? Did you get a virus or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difjdsogjosgn (talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluto is not a planet anymore (talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

Hi Vanjagenije, you have a history of looking at cases for User:Eulalefty. Perhaps you can look at another case I have bought forward. Cheers.--Peaceworld 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Your help desk question got archived with no answers. This sounds like something WP:VPT might be able to deal with.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: How do you mean "with no answers". I received an answer by John of Reading (WP:Help_desk/Archives/2015_July_20#Talk_page_archives_indexing). Vanjagenije (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading an old version of the Help Desk while searching for a mysterious unsigned question without a proper heading. At that time you had just asked your question and, needing to go the archive to see that day's questions but realizing they were there instead, I forgot I was seeing an old version.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanjagenije. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 22:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SPI

Hi Vanjagenije. Should there be a link to the archive at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sportsnation213? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Yes. The system cache needs to be purged. Best way to do it is by performing a WP:NULLEDIT. I just did it and the link appeared. It happens often. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahh. Thought it should have been there! Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: It would appear anyway, even if I didn't do anything. Sometimes it appears after a few minutes, but sometimes a whole day is needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sleeper checks

Hi Vanjagenije, I wanted to clarify a few things, at least as far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for other checkusers. Sleeper checks are complicated. However, generally you can assume that when I run a CU, I will report any sleepers I find. There are exceptions and wrinkles to that, so feel free to ask on specific cases if you're unsure. The more accounts I check, the more likely I am to find sleepers if they exist. In the Jaredg2008 case, I was only checking two accounts per your request. The only reason to run another check would be to check other accounts, but then there would have to be a good justification for doing that and someone would have to determine which accounts and how many to check. My guess in this case, given the signature of the master, there will be more socks reported at SPI, even if it's not Mr Potto who does so, which means there will be more sleeper checks run against those new accounts, assuming they are checked at all. I hope that makes sense. If not, feel free to ask me to clarify. Thanks for putting up with all the drama.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for clarification. I want to be helpful, but the problem is that I (like all non-CUs) have no idea how that tool actually works. I know that you compare technical data of several accounts, and that's all. So, sometimes I am not aware that something I'm asking for is not actually possible (or very complicated). Maybe it would be helpful if you add that {{Nosleepers}} tag every time you actually check for sleepers, but don't find anything. That would make other editors aware that the sleepers check was performed. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand your request, but it's not really conventional to do that. How about this? If you want a sleeper check run, say so, and after I run the check, I'll add the template if nothing is found. I think that's a better way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm not sure you understood me. Often, I endorse a CU check, not asking for the sleepers check, just to compare two accounts. And, after you post your results, other editors are not aware whether you performed a sleepers check or not. That is the problem, because somebody may request a sleepers check, being unaware that you actually made it. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I understood. If the filer or someone in the body of the SPI asks for a sleeper check, you should mention that in your endorsement, i.e., "I want to compare these accounts and endorse a sleeper check because ..." or "I want to compare these accounts but don't endorse a sleeper check because ..." If neither you nor someone else requests a sleeper check, then they shouldn't be expecting one, and we'll deal with it if they mention it later as an afterthought.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Now, I'm little confused. First, you said "You can assume that when I run a CU, I will report any sleepers I find." But, then you said "If neither [...] requests a sleeper check, then they shouldn't be expecting one". Aren't those two statement in contradiction with each other? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I said I would report any sleepers I find purely for your information. It has nothing to do with whether I use the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK, I get it. There is no need to use the template if nobody asked for a sleepers check. Sounds reasonable. Sorry if I sounded a little rude telling you are being contradictory. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You've never been rude to me, and this discussion is no exception.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorrowthemovie

Is it OK if I retag his socks as socks of the new master, Theroyalnikunj? Bazj (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj: Yes, of course. I didn't see that there are more of them. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Bazj (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

PRU

this edit is not very honest. She/he pretexts only 1 cause (false cause of removal source because it's a non reliable source) to perform several unwarranted changes.--Francis Le français (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Le français: What does it have to do with me and how can I help? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

your opinion is welcome. --Francis Le français (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked a sock raised at an SPI last year

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect - he edited today, quacking loudly, so I blocked him. Not sure if you want to edit the old SPI or not. Blocking an IP as well. Doug Weller (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks. I closed the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dxq298

This user does not exist at enwiki, so sockpuppet investigations don't work.--GZWDer (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@GZWDer: Thank you very much. I know that the account is not registered here. But there is strong evidence that it as an account registered by Tobias Conradi at WikiData. What is exactly the problem? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Only stewards can do a checkuser in any wikis. Local checkusers can't act out of enwiki. They can't get xwiki data.--GZWDer (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@GZWDer: So? CheckUser check is not even endorsed, and will not be performed anyway until I endorse and say what should be checked. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

However listing a non-exist user is not useful for Checkuser without assistance of stewards (Wikidata have no local Checkusers).--GZWDer (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@GZWDer: I think you should let the SPI clerks decide what is useful in sockpuppet invetigations. If you have a suggestion, you are free to say, but reverting the clerk is very disruptive. SPI investigations are not only about CheckUser. CheckUser is just a tool that helps conducting sockpuppet investigations. In sockpuppet investigations, we compare behavior of multiple accounts, sometimes accounts registered on other Wikis, when that helps establishing a behavioral pattern. If there is a strong evidence that an account is a sockpuppet, it is actually quite useful to list it regardless of whether local CU (or any CU) can check it. Anyway, CheckUser check is not performed until a clerk endorses the check and says which accounts are to be checked. And, in this particular case, no check was endorsed at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI case that didn't get properly archived

I don't think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabnite got archived correctly. It's not displaying the link to the archives. I think it's because there's a redundant template in the article, but I'm reluctant to mess around with templates that I don't fully understand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Actually, everything is OK. The page needs to be purged. See my explanation above in the #SPI section. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Good thing I didn't mess with it, then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sofiamar

Hey, I noticed this earlier and the archive link is not showing at this page and my attempts of fixing it had no avail. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I sometimes get the same issue. Purging the page fixes the displaying of the archive link. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  @SwisterTwister: See sections #SPI and #SPI case that didn't get properly archived above. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Today's interaction

Hello V. I am sure that you would rather not hear from me so please remove this at your discretion. I am happy that your move of the check user proved to be the correct action. I am also thoroughly willing to apologize for all of the offensive words that I used. I know that the work at SPI is difficult. I don't think that you know my editing at all so I want you to know that I am not in the habit of filing frivolous reports or creating problems for those that are helping to protect WikiP. I did so in this case and, again, I apologize. I extended AGF to FF2 time and again and had it thrown back in my face. That is not an excuse for my errors today but it is why I am susceptible to making them in this specific case. No doubt socks of both FF2 and Jared will return. I hope that we can work together to stop them but I fully understand that you will have problems trusting or listening to me regarding this. Enjoy your Sunday in spite of everything. MarnetteD|Talk 05:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Don't worry, It's OK. It seams to me that you don't completely understand the WP:CheckUser policy. CheckUser is a tool that should be used only when it is absolutely necessary to stop disruption of Wikipedia, and when we have credible evidence that multiple accounts are editing from the same cpmputer. That is because using the tool also compromises user's privacy to a certain degree, and we should not compromise user's privacy except when that is necessary to stop disruption. This is not subject to discussion or consensus, as you implied. In the particular case we discussed it was not necessary to check MarkusAlBertson against FrozenFan2 because he was already blocked, and all his other accounts were going to be blocked soon. So, the disruption was effectively stopped, and the checking was not necessary for stopping any disruption. We still don't know for sure whether MarkusAlBertson is Jaredgk2008 or is he FrozenFan2 using different IP address. But, that is not important, we stopped his disruption, and that is our job. Even if he is blocked, we are not allowed to breach his privacy by checking him just out of pure curiosity. I can guarantee that, did I endorse the check, it would be declined by every CheckUser. They would just say "why checking him when he is already blocked". Vanjagenije (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain things in detail. It is appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 15:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: First, really nice apology. Second, in this instance, it's about as conclusive as it gets that the account belonged to Jaredgk2008. It's not just the IP addresses used. There are other data that are part of the analysis. Also, there are times when a checkuser checks an already-blocked account. Rather than going into a lot of scenarios, let's just say "it depends".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Regarding this: "Even if he is blocked, we are not allowed to breach his privacy by checking him just out of pure curiosity" -- thanks for the reminder. Like MarnetteD, at the time the SPI was happening, I was also confused as to why the FF2 account wasn't being checked against the account being reported. Your statement above sums it all up for me. Further, if I came off as overly aggressive toward you, Vanjagenije, I apologize. That was never my intent. More than anything, I was confused as to how things were winding up. Cheers,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

I haven't visited your user page before, but I cannot resist telling you that I absolutely love your "Policies and guidelines in art" section! (Especially sockpuppeting and adminship.) They say pictures are worth a thousand words, but I say that, properly chosen, images can be worth whole tomes. Evensteven (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: Thanks! That section is new, I made it a week ago. So, it is still in the development. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir

Hi Vanjagenije! Hope you understand the depth of the Kashmir conflict. I am writing you because I saw your edit on Kashmir's page. As we know that j&k Kashmir is an occupied territory. It isn't situated in india nor in Pakistan. But some editors try it to be seen as a part of india on its page. I had tried to change their edits but they have removed it and put the same things as they were before. Can you do something? I just want people read the right information. Thanks! Zaif1010 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zaif1010: What exactly do you mean when you say that you "have tried to change their edits"? I don't see your account having any edit related to Kashmir (Special:Contributions/Zaif1010). Do you operate more than one user account? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes i have another account! Zaif1010 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I edited from the second one Zaif1010 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zaif1010: Using more than one account is not allowed except in some rare situations (see: WP:SOCK). I strongly advise you to disclose all your accounts on your userpage(s). You may use {{User alternative account}} template for that. Using multiple accounts without disclosing them publicly may result in blocking. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember the password of my another account Zaif1010 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zaif1010: You should still tag your current user page with the {{User previous account}} tag if you don't want to be blocked. Anyway, try to explain me what exactly do you think is wrong with the Kashmir article and what you expect me to do. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well. I am not using my old account, because I've forgotten the password. Coming to the kashmir case, some editors have written that jammu and Kashmir is an Indian state but actually, it isn't, (as i mentioned before). So it means that they are providing wrong information to others. I edit the page and they remove my edits. Can you make the page safe putting right information? Here are the pages Jammu and Kashmir and Kashmir conflict Zaif1010 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zaif1010: So, you actually think that the article Jammu and Kashmir should not describe the territory as part of India? That is a very controversial topic. No editor should change it before discussing it on the article talk page and reaching WP:CONSENSUS with other editors. Wikipedia is based on consensus. I recommend you to go to the article talk page and discuss your concerns with other editors (that is what article talk pages are for). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok thank you so much! Zaif1010 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources

Hi Vanjagenijie. I have a question about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources.

Another new IP (Special:Contributions/2601:403:4000:6DF0:BCB1:C28:E147:EC1F) made this edit to Bulgaria national football team. The content and style of the edit are exactly the same as the other accounts listed in the SPI. I'm not sure how to add this account to the discussion. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Well, just add it and explain why at the page. But, I don't think that we can do anything. He is using some dynamic IPs, and we can't block them all. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response. I just wasn't sure how to add another account to the page. I'll give a go, but let me know if I screwed anything up. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo at SPI (trivial)

I meant to copy-paste your name in this edit, but instead "cut-pasted" it by mistake. But you've now fixed it, so no harm done. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Sometimes it seems that you're managing the whole of SPI all by yourself - your clerking is greatly appreciated, just wanted to let you know. Yunshui 雲水 09:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Yunshui: Thank you very much. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

heavy handed and self endorse?

Don't you think you're being a bit heavy handed in closing SPIs?[3]

And what's with the self-endorse? [4] The Dissident Aggressor 05:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@DissidentAggressor: I'm not sure what are you talking about. I am a WP:SPI Clerk. My job is to endorse/selfendorse CheckUser and to close SPI cases. Do you have a particular complaint or you are just unhappy with the SPI process? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Some help

Hello sir, I need some help on making sure that I do not get involved into an edit war because It has happened and I was close to getting blocked. In the future if someone reverts my edits again what should I do? Gameroffun (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gameroffun: Can you tell the article in which that happened? Who told you that you are close to get blocked? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was Plants vs. Zombies and User:Soetermans told me I may get blocked because I said something that I should of not said. That was the time we were in an edit war and we are over it but I still need help in the future that what should I do if I get into an argument. Gameroffun (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gameroffun: Are you talking about this? First of all, you should know about Wikipedia's policy called WP:VERIFIABILITY. Every statement in the article that may be challenged should have a reference to a reliable source. You kept adding the information without providing any source. Generally, if you want to change something in the article, you should always cite source, unless the statement is obvious. If you make an edit to an article, and somebody reverts it, you should not revert him. You should go to the article talk page and try to discuss the matter with the editor who reverted you (see: WP:BRD). On the talk page, you should provide some reliable sources for your edit. I see that you did go to the talk page, but you just told that you "think" the genre is also action, adventure, but you did not provide any source. If your edit gets opposition form other editors, you should always try to discuss it with them on the talk page, and try to reach consensus. If that does not give result, you may try wp:request for comment, or wp:dispute resolution, but you should never keep pushing your edit without reaching consensus (that is edit-warring and is punishable by blocking). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much sir, for helping me out kept info on my talk page (copied). Gameroffun (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Editor of All Things Wikipedia sockpuppet case

Vanjagenije - This case is the second time recently that I am aware of that you have closed a case after behavioral blocking while refusing a CU check for sleepers or a master. I do not think that you are serving the SPI process well by doing that. The point is not just to block the current users, but to see if they've set themselves up for a quick return to action by creating sleeper socks. Because sleeper socks do not edit until they are activated, there is never any evidence for the existence of a sleeper, so asking for evidence seems like a self-defeating request. Doing a sleeper search is a precuationary measure, designed to protedct Wikipedia after an admin has already decided that there's been socking going on. I respectfully request that you re-think your policy concerning sleepers and be less dismissive of the concerns of editors in good standing who are only trying to do their best to help the project. At the very least, you might mention the request to another clerk or CU and consult with them as to the best course of action. Thank you. BMK (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Running sleepers check for every single SPI would be a waste of time. There were several cases in which checkusers declined my requests for sleepers check, because there was no enough evidence to run such check. Sleepers check is usually run only in those cases when there are large number of socks, or the master frequently creates new socks, or there were sleeper accounts in the past. I'm not sure what is the first case (you say this one is "second time"). But, if you are talking about this, my decision was uplheld by the checkuser, as I remember. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that discretion must be used. I suppose it comes down to two recent cases where I disagree strongly with your rather peremptory dismissal of the request. As for evidence, I feel I must repeat again there is never any evidence of the existence of sleepers. I believe you fail to understand this. BMK (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Actually, I gave you as many as three examples of evidence used to run sleepers check in my previous post ("when there are large number of socks, or the master frequently creates new socks, or there were sleeper accounts in the past"). Maybe you fail to understand that? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't run a sleeper check, so you have no idea if there are a "large number of socks." You don't know who the master is because you did not endorse a CU, so you have no idea if the master "frequently creates new socks", again, not knowing who the master is, you have no idea of what their past is. You seem to be requiring that each case bootstrap itself, and that is totally unreasonable. Someone, sometime, on some SPI, must have made the first CU check and uncovered multiple socks, because a clerk endorsed the check. If all clerks were you, not endorsing checks on relatively new cases, there would never be any first time, no history to go by, and socking would be even more rampant than it is now. As I said, these actions seem to me to be a distinct disservice to the SPI process, and I respectfully ask that you seriously reconsider them. I believe some introspection is called for here, not rote answers on your part. BMK (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Menon

Hi, you probably should not have done this. You have now created a implication that at least those Indian people named in the list are members of the Menon subcaste, which is a violation of WP:BLP. That is why the old title was "list of people called ..." - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Where exactly does it say that they are member of the subcaste? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I said "implication". The thing refers to the Menon subcaste of India and then has a list of Indian people. That has been determined to be problematic for BLP in the past. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I really don't understand. That is a disambiguation page that disambiguates articles connected to term "Menon". Nowhere on the page is it implied that those people listed are part of the Menon subcaste. Actually, in the edit you cited [5], I made it clear by moving the list to a separate section titled "surname". We have thousands of such disambiguation pages. For example, see this page: Bush. First, it says that bush is a "type of woody plant", and then it list people with a surname Bush. So, does it imply that those people are woody plants? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The old way - a dab that includes a See also to List of people called Menon - is better. It avoids the implication and it shortens the long listing. I'm not even sure that all the people listed as Indian are in fact Indian, nor is their name necessarily a surname in the Western sense of the word. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section to "People", as it is titled in other disambiguation pages. IF some of them are not Indian, feel free to move them to the "Other" section. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock Scottish12345678

Thanks for tidying up WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scottish12345678. I haven't created many and I've not got the hang of the format for them. Is there a template or something I should be using? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: Yes, there is. Go to WP:SPI, click on the box that says "How to open an investigation", and follow the instructions. Or, alternatively, you may use Twinkle. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm ok with opening a new case. It's adding to a prior case where everything was archived off the main page. You're kind of just faced with a blank page headed by a template. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Debora Mugica‎

Hello, this case has been out there for a while, you endorsed a checkuser on 8/11, is it normal for a checkuser to take this long or is there something wrong with the case? These SPA's keep popping up; they are very persistent. Let me know if there is anything else I could do to move it along. We had to get one of the articles protected for 3 months. Thanks, Vrac (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong as I can tell. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case Casey Family Programs

Hi, Vangagenije,

Thank you for closing the sockpuppet case involving Casey Family Programs. I'm now wondering if it's possible/acceptable to undo the Advert and COI alerts that the accuser placed on that page. I'm just not clear about acceptable protocol. Feel free to point me to references. Worldraveler (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Worldraveler: You should not remove those tags before you discuss it on the talk page of the article. You should write on the talk page why you think those should be removed. And, of course, good idea is to ping the editor who placed those tags. If nobody responds to your explanations, you can remove the tags after several days. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Brad Dyer

The user was not blocked for sockpuppetry, he was blocked for being involved in a massively violent storm which is now at ArbCom. See this case. It is entirely possible that he will be unblocked in the future. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Yes, but what's the difference? He is blocked, we can't block him twice. The point of the WP:SPI is to stop disruption of Wikipedia, and since the user is blocked, he can't disrupt. What's the point to investigate an already blocked account? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that he will be marked as a sock of NoCal100 (if confirmed of course). And that will also change the ArbCom discussion, if it becomes clear that this whole storm was created by a long-term sock. Besides, this user a long record of activating old accounts for re-use. Kingsindian ♝♚

After some more digging, I am actually not sure this is NoCal100. So, it might be better to keep this closed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charas

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charas. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		2,209 patrolls in the last 12 months! That's very good! Keep up the good work! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you very much! Vanjagenije (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Merging

I think I now see the source of confusion on that other case (what is now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ventom Group). Apparently, in that case and in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart, you copied and pasted the recent SPI into the existing case, which is not the proper procedure. A merge should be done by an administrator because it requires deletion of the existing case and restoration of the edit history.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yea, I know, but I thought it's not a problem as long as I properly attribute the source in the edit summary wile merging (just like when merging articles). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is a problem. Even the clerk procedures, which are not a model of accuracy or completeness, explain the procedure for merging when a case exists. In my view, you must request administrator assistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK, no problem. Can you fix those two? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say in this case, it's best to let it go. It's tougher to fix after the fact than it would have been to do it properly in the first instance. The world won't come to an end if we leave them as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To add unto this, one of the only circumstances I think of where copypasting is needed is when splitting a single report to two cases. If you're splitting an entire report from one case to another, you can delete, restore those revisions, move them, then restore the rest. If you're splitting a single report into two cases, there is no way to "duplicate" the revisions, so C&P is the way. I've also taken the time to histfix the two cases mentioned above for the sake of it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct. I've had to do that kind of split, and it's a royal pain in the ass.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Request

Vanja, I know how hard you work at SPI, and it's much appreciated. I'm not asking you to do more work, but it would be helpful if you could shift at least some of your focus to the SPIs that are in checked status. There's a significant backlog in that category, and it could use some attention. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: OK, no problem, but most of these cases really need an administrator. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said for all SPIs, but as a non-admin clerk you can always request an administrator. Of course, I could also notify some admin clerks (smile) like Berean Hunter, Someguy1221, Richwales, and Salvidrim!.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have this talk page on my watchlist and I've been feeling bad about not pulling my weight :p I'll see if I can't free up some significant time tonight to knock out the backlog. Vanjagenije, perhaps you should use this as justification for an RfA? ;D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I will try to get some cases this afternoon and then again in the evening. Although inactive as a SPI clerk at the moment, the industrious Mark Arsten would be an asset in this endeavor. He used to blaze through cases...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For those of you who dove in to handle the checked status backlog, all I can say is I'm impressed. I can't believe how fast you folk have brought the category down to only three. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

My wiki-interests are changing and I won't be doing so much new page patrolling for the foreseeable future, and so it's less likely I'll be stumbling across socks. I just wanted to thank you for your clerking at SPI which, on my experience over the last couple of months, you seem to be doing almost single-handed. Thanks, it's appreciated. Bazj (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang

Hi Vanjagenije. I added NickAangWiki (talk · contribs) an, already blocked, likely sock to the SPI here, but then realised I probably shouldn't have added it to the archive. Any suggestion on what I should have done, or should do, in future? 220 of ^Borg 04:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: You should open a new case at the case page, not add it to the archive. If the sock is already blocked, the clerk would then close the case, and another clerk would archive the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I've reverted my edit to the archive and added NickAangWiki to the casepage. 220 of ^Borg 08:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Štrpce

You undid my edits at Štrpce without any explanation.My edits were based on official sources and I hope you have a good explanation for it.If not,my edits will be readded.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi+: The title of the article is (currently) "Štrpce". The "name" parameter in the main infobox and the first bolded name in the lead section should be the same as the title. You changed that [6]. Changing the name in the lead and in the infobox without changing the title makes the article confusing for readers. If you think the title of the article should be changed, you are free to start a WP:move request at the talk page of the article. But, as long as the title is "Štrpce", the infobox and the lead section should follow, for consistency. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Migosyrn/Archive

Sorry I didn't see your comment at the bottom, asking for a new investigation to be started- I just added these four here. and they are part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Traphouseiii. I'm a bit out of my depth now! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: You should not have done that. Archives are to be edited only by clerks and checkusers. I undid your edit. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Traphouseiii needs to be history merged into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Migosyrn by an admin, and then archived. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well never mind that, you've got lots more work to be doing over there. Ciao. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Are MehulWB and Orangemoody the same group?

Hi Vanjagenije,

While looking for Orangemoody sockpuppets, I kept finding MehulWB sockpuppets as well. They seem to have an identical modus operandi, so I wonder whether they're the same group. --Slashme (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Slashme: Well, I don't know. Do you have some evidence?

Only behavioral: both groups were adding things like "and it belongs to genus x" to species articles, removing redlinks indiscriminately, adding italic titles, and using Twinkle to tag articles, presumably to build up an edit count while staying under the radar, and then, if they weren't blocked beforehand, they'd typically do three or four edits to an article in a row, one of which would include a spamlink.

My impression is that if they're not the same group, they're following the same procedure. --Slashme (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Slashme: I advice you to post your findings (including diffs) at WT:SPI. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks; will do that this evening. --Slashme (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Remaining unblocked sockpuppets

Hi. I reported all of the below users when I submitted SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Escoperloit/Archive#26_July_2015).

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Escoperloit
  • Beyranvand (talk · contribs)
  • Khajevand2010 (talk · contribs)
  • Kiandad1 (talk · contribs)
  • Iranmehr27 (talk · contribs)
  • Moonstone1889 (talk · contribs)
  • Parthiaa1 (talk · contribs)
  • Sadra2011 (talk · contribs)

I see you and other admins found his oldest accounts and blocked all of them. Thanks for your good work. But the above accounts are still available to use. They're inactive/stale but his behavior and activity pattern proved that he will use them in the future again. So should I submit a new report or not? --Zyma (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma: Yes, it would be nice if you open a new investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Escoperloit. But, back in July, you opened an investigation and listed all of those accounts [7], but the investigation was no properly formated. You were then advise by a CheckUser how to format the investigation properly [8], bu you did not do it. Then, I asked you to format the investigation as advised [9], but you did not do it again, and the investigation was closed on procedural grounds. So, if you reopen the investigation, be sure to format it properly. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. If I resubmit them, I will do it in a proper and clear format. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI Work

According to User:Deskana, SPI clerks usually train SPI trainee clerks, rather than CheckUsers. I just want to ensure that this is correct before making a trainee proposal to you. Please ping me when replying to my message - thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Both CheckUsers and SPI Clerks train new trainee clerks. Previously, training were individual (one clerk/CheckUser training one trainee). Individual training is still possible, but currently preferred method is group training (see: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training). In the group training, several clerks and CheckUsers train several trainees at the same time (potential trainees may apply at WT:SPI/C). The last group training was held in January 2015, and was quite unsuccessful because all trainees except one (myself) left the training before it was over without any explanation. I proposed to other clerks and CUs that we should organize new group training (see: WT:SPI/C#New group training), but all those other clerks and CUs who answered my post said that they do not have time. I'm the newest clerk in the team, and one of the few that are not admins, so I don't really want to start group training on my own. I'm expecting some of the more experienced clerks or CUs to help. I'm going to push the question again right now. If you want to be a clerk, be sure to apply at WT:SPI/C. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see this as a reference. A handful of other CheckUsers have also told me that they are busy. In terms of the functionary, the block is turned into a larger issue than it is, in my opinion. If needed, however, I will get a functionary from Wikipedia:Functionaries. --JustBerry (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I do have time, but I don't want to train one trainee. I want to organize group training, but I need at least one more experienced clerk/CU to take part. If I manage to organize a training, I will certainly consider your application. You have to apply at WT:SPI/C. Your block log is problematic, I see, because you was twice blocked for sock-puppetry. You'll have to carefully explain the situation in your application. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Prior to talking about any clerking, I would like to note that Bbb23 mentioned on his user page (in the section I linked to you) that it might be best to have a functionary present the case, as the situation would seem "convoluted" otherwise. What might be the appropriate procedure for that? It seems like the block log will be a hurdle in any significant role I plan to uptake on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, so it might be best to address the issue now rather than later anyway. --JustBerry (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't say that it might best to have a functionary involved. I said: "If you believe that a functionary is the best person to share your history with (on or off wiki), I would pick one that is active at SPI." The key point here is that you will have to explain your block log to the satisfaction of the SPI team, including the CheckUsers. You may be able to do that by yourself. You may need someone else's assistance. I have no idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: To further clarify and correct, I think that the option Bbb23 mentioned might be the best route given the current circumstances. Someone else's assistance is not required; the main issue seems to be finding someone to directly address the issue with, without simply putting it on the SPI clerk interest list page. --JustBerry (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Undertrialryryr/Archive

Hello! Seems that you know much about the subject sockmaster and I for sure know nothing. I suspect there is a new account "Fruitsseeds". Can you please keep an eye? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: I suppose you have some evidence? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Its just a haunch. That's why i didn't raise an SPI. Maybe you can see the duck quacking sooner or later. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WARx2

I think the new WARx2 Wikipedia page was deleted earlier today without following proper Wikipedia rules and guidelines Katymall (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Katymall: It was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. Try discussing it with him. I just closed the AFD discussion after the article was already deleted, so I have nothing to do with the deletion. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Question Regarding SPI

I see you archived my question here; thanks for letting me know. Can you answer my question here though? Ping me when you reply. --JustBerry (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I did not "archive" anything, I removed your comment. Editing archives is not allowed for obvious reasons. Every user is automatically notified when his edit is reverted, so you was certainly notified about that. I can't answer you question, because I don't understand it. You say that "the master sock was inserted after the initial filing of the case", but as I see in the history, nothing was "inserted". This is the first edition of the page, created by you. I don't see anything being inserted after that. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I understand that; however, you have misunderstood my question here. My question was quite simple. You commented the following "In the future, when you open a case, open it under the name of the oldest account (the master)" on that SPI case. I am informing you that the master sock was found after the case was filed. What would have been the appropriate move in this situation? Ping me when you reply. --JustBerry (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: And who is that master? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Please review this case and your own comment. --JustBerry (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• @JustBerry: I'm not sure what you are talking about. The situation is this: you opened a case indicating Abnormal catastrophe as a master and 69erAlphaDelta and 96.252.197.24 as his socks. But, the 69erAlphaDelta account is much older then the Abnormal catastrophe account. But, an older account cannot be a sockpuppet of a newer account, by definition. So, I told you that in the future, you should open the case in the name of the oldest account. That's it. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  I still don't think you've understood the situation. What you have stated above is correct. However, I had mentioned that I had already opened the case under a newer account prior to finding an older account. Should I have made a page move myself? Please ping me when you reply next time. --JustBerry (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• @JustBerry: No, there is no need to move anything. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that you have still not understood my question. The question is essentially seeking clarification for what should have been done in the situation provided above. @Salvidrim!: Would you care to comment? --JustBerry (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop wasting volunteer time by beating a dead horse. Forget about the existence of SPI altogether and find some other area in which to invest your time and efforts -- perhaps finding a WikiProject about a topic that interests you? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Salvidrim: Your comment seems highly inappropriate. Dropping the SPI case is really not the problem here; the suggestion Vanjagenije gave to me in the SPI case is invalid if you're not able to explain what should have been done. Please give possible and insightful suggestions in the future, rather than those that you are not able to elaborate upon. However, if you insist, this discussion can be dropped. --JustBerry (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of course I insist. Thank you for dropping this. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Salvidrim.21.27s_Conduct. --JustBerry (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI

hello.see Balkars,Karachays,Karachay-Balkars.many similar accounts and ip-users do similar edits on those articles.very similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34.tnx.--126.216.205.179 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to report them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip J Fry‎

Just I wanted to warn that already exists this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damián80.--Philip J Fry (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: And, what is the connection between the two? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Damián80 was my old nickname, but I see that everything is separate.--Philip J Fry (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: And Chema was also your account? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this user's history -- I've merged both cases under the current name. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smile Lee

Hey, just a heads up, you shouldn't be pinging DoRD regarding CheckUser issues anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The SPI case here

Hi, I left a comment regarding the SPI case on Bbb23's talk page here. Could you comment on this, since you were the SPI clerk for this case? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: If you think that LoveFerguson/Zeremony is a sock of Wlglunight93, please open a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wlglunight93 and present your evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js

Hi Vanja, what does this script do? I didn't see any documentation for it, and I'm not good at reading scripts. I'm looking for a way to automate two kinds of tasks. The first is to take a list of accounts and block them with a particular block basis. The second is tag a list of account usernames with the same sock template. Best would be a way to combine the two operations into one. Will this script do any of that? If not, is there a script that will? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The script allows (me) to: change the status of a SPI case, comment on a case, archive a case, and tag multiple users as socks/masters. Maybe there are more options if used by an administrator, I don't know. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The interface for the script is available under the "more" tab with the tag "SPI" when you are on an SPI page. The script has additional functions for admins and checkusers including the ability to block and tag. - 185.108.128.8 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes it will combine those two functions for automation just like what you are looking for. It does not have an option for hardblocking so that must still be done manually. I would recommend the script.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Berean Hunter, I'm concerned about damage I might do inadvertently, e.g., blocking someone by mistake. I'll install it and look at it, but I'm assuming it has sufficient safeguards to prevent that. It would make things much easier when I have a long list of socks and don't feel like asking the clerk to do all the work, particularly when it's, for example, Vanja's endorsement, and he can't block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm a dolt. I already have the script installed but just never used this feature because I never paid attention to the checkbox that invokes the interface. Ah me. Anyway, I still have a question. After the "Dur" column, there are four more columns: ACB, AB/AO, NTP, and NEM. I assume those all correspond to the block options on the block form. What I don't see is a way to specify the block reason to be checkuserblock-account. How do I do that?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

AB=AutoBlock, AO=Anon. Only, NTP=No Talk Page, NEM=No E-Mail. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That isn't an option that I can see but that may likely be due to the fact that I don't have the CU bit. Another CU with the script installed would have to answer. You can select the tags to read as such but the block reasons that fill in for us simply points to the SPI case with reason "Abusing multiple accounts".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK you can't; unless CUs have extra functionality in the script... the standard block log reason is "socking + link to the SPI" (see example). Perhaps Timotheus Canens or Callanecc might be able to work an option for custom block messages into the code? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The access level to the script is the same for everyone. Making a change like that is beyond me, something for Tim. If I'm using checkuserblock-account I do it through Special:CheckUser or Special:Block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The logical person to ask is Tim, but he hasn't contributed here in over two weeks, which is the main reason why I didn't ask him about all this to begin with. Otherwise I have to find a CheckUser who uses the tool. I think I'll just try it and see what happens. Not the end of the world if the reason isn't specified as long as it's tagged. It's just my habit and I think it makes it easier if another administrator is looking at the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Re Callanecc: "the access level to the script is the same for everyone", even for non-admin clerks like Vanjagenije? So he still sees the button the block but trying to use it would fail somehow? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't actually thought of that but I thought it did. Have to wait for him to answer that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking from my non-admin account, it's only tag socks (username and the same dropdown in the admin version). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim! and Callanecc: No, I don't see the option to block accounts. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The script is context-aware. You can search "function spiHelper_generateBlockTableLine(name, defaultblock, id, admin){" to see the admin options. I'm not seeing that it is CU aware though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not CU-aware (and doesn't have CU-only block options) because I wasn't a CU when I wrote it :) When I get some spare time I can probably add it. For now, you can use User:Timotheus Canens/massblock.js. Add it and go to Special:MassBlock. T. Canens (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As an aside...

I guess the level of response to this thread shows how many (talk page stalker) Vanja has. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

99 in fact. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have 577, which absolutely baffles me. Maybe I could send some of 'em over to you, Vanja? There isn't a perfect correlation, though, between the number of watchers and the number of actual posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, please, but only young ladies. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Many of those are probably blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

re @Salvidrim:...or the number of people stalking Bbb23.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Sent you an e-mail about something I wanted to start with you tonight, please let me know ASAP if it can work for you. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Berek. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ahuacatlán Municipality, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Berek (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Ankara bombings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Ankara bombings. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI Listing

Any ideas why this SPI case still hasn't listed at WP:SPI? --JustBerry (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: It is missing the {{SPI case status}} template. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --JustBerry (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI Case

Good evening, you recently closed the following SPI case that I opened on the grounds that the ip user is already blocked. However, this block is only short term (for breaking the 3RR) and expires in a few hours. Therefore, would it be possible to look again at the case? Frinton100 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ConsciousKipper

@Frinton100: IPs are rarely blocked for longer than two or three days, and that only if shorter block does not stop the disruption. The block is now expired, but there is no point to re-block the IP if there is no ongoing disruption. If the IP continue to make disruptive edits, than a longer block may be appropriate. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

@Dharmadhyaksha: Well, thank you very much. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

RfA

I transcluded it as requested. Good luck, and see you on the other side! :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I wish I knew you were running. I would have offered to co-nominate you. Unfortunately I've been away travelling for the past month so I haven't been around SPI much as of late. Mkdw^talk 18:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Thank you very much. You are free to add your co-nomination (I don't know if that is allowed, but I don't see why not). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've stated what was needed in the support column. I think now that people are participating in it that I shouldn't change the RFA. Best of luck! I remember my RFA. It was quite the week though I was less qualified than you at the time. Mkdw^talk 21:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen co-nominations added during the first two days of an RfA but not once it is well underway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I like your answer to #7, and I would even if I didn't agree with you. 5c was well handled. However, please pay attention to MusikAnimal's comment in regard to the IP block you requested--MusikAnimal can't spell worth a damn but they're one of the finest admins we have. You'll run into this time and again--block or semi-protect? I think that your SPI work automatically suggests you block, but semi-protection is often a better tool and many IPs are just too dynamic. There, that was the bad news. Keep up the good work. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Thanks a lot. I will certainly take that advice. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

SPI report on Bhtpbank

I have taken the liberty of unmerging the two reports at this SPI case. While I accept that your efforts were well intentioned, I feel that the revised report is appearing to be something that is not. This follows from several allegations that Uk55 has made and so that appearance is undesireable. The revised report gives the impression that DSP is merely supporting my report. The original format makes it clear that DSP's report was raised independently of mine and that two editors had independently come to the same conclusion. I believe that is important. I completely concur with the collapsing of the editor interaction tool side show and I have kept that.

There might be something that you may be able to help me with. Is there a tool or utility anywhere that allows a search of article and user talk pages? I ask because Uk55 used a strange turn of phrase in one of his allegations, and it is phrase that I have seen used before. If I could find it, it might be useful evidence. --LiveRail 11:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@LiveRail: You took too much liberty in this case. Reverting SPI Clerks in SPI pages is considered disruptive and is not allowed (see: WP:SPI/PROC). Whether DieSwartzPunkt just supported you, or filled the case independently of you, is irrelevant. Important thing is that we have a suspected sockpuppet and we have evidence. Who raised the case and who supported whom is irrelevant. Having two open cases on the same suspected sockpuppet is unacceptable.

Wikipedia's search tool allows searching all pages, including user talk pages. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case please accept my humblest apologies. I had not actually realised that you were an SPI clerk. --LiveRail 15:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have tried the search tool. Either there is another one I do not know about, but the one I am using (search box, top of the page) does not search talk pages. I tried entering a bit of text from this page, but your talk page (or any talk page) is not listed as containing it. --LiveRail 15:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@LiveRail: Wikipedia search only searches articles by default. But, if you click "Advanced", you can search other namespaces. (Alternatively, you can use this link: [10]). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

McGeddon sock case

Hi. I deleted this and blocked the creator. Should hopefully be the end of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks! Vanjagenije (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Important issues

Hello.I know this may be inappropriate over here but can one copy-paste summaries from official website of an article?Eg.Official website of a television series.where they offer Episode summaries.Thanks Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 20:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nyanchoka: No, that would be copyright violation. See: WP:COPY-PASTE. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.How can I get you in E-mail I have an issue I wanna adress to you. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 22:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nyanchoka: You can click "Email this user" on the left. But, please, use that option only for private issues. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I sent an Email a week or so ago. How did my request go the issue? Thank you. -- Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 18:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

Thanks for your work on the SPI for Arifer (talk · contribs). Unfortunately it didn't take long for a new IP to get involved: 190.97.61.112 (talk · contribs). Should I simply add it to the SPI case? I'm not sure how that's supposed to work when there's an indication it will shortly be archived. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: When the already existing case is open, it is recommended to add newly found suspects to that existing case. But, when the existing case is already closed (as in this case) it is recommended to open a new case (on the same page). You can use the standard procedure (at WP:SPI) or to use Twinkle, the new case is than added to the same page after the already closed case. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

director

what is happening at the spi? why is it still open, also i think due to directors behavior can you please do something about him, thanks Dannis243 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dannis243: It is open because nobody closed it. What do you think I should do about him? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment

"I think I'm out of form these days".

Vanja, I'm not sure what you mean, but if you think you need a break from SPI or even from Wikipedia, god knows you should take it considering all your hard work. SPI (and Wikipedia) can be draining. We should all take breaks more often (/me the pot calling the kettle black). Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm just busy these days in the real life, so I don't have much time for Wikipedia (as usual). Nothing else. Everything is OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Concern

Hi, I wrote you an email long ago but you never gave me a feedback. Please give me an answer so that I can close that chapter. Thank you.-- Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 12:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nyanchoka: Sorry for not answering sooner, I was busy. You sent me an e-mail regarding a certain SPI case. That case was closed by myself because of the lack of evidence. In your message, you did not provide any new evidence, so I don't know what do you expect from me to do. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Page

Hello Vanjagenije Thanks for your tips to a newcomer at Wiki.I intend to follow them in due course. With ref to your comments: a) the page is not about myself b) Neither is it meant for any kind of promotion c) the purpose of creating the page is to bring forth information of a period when internet was not available and references were confined to published books,journals and conferences

Appreciate for your time Best AviaLibr 07:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R S Thakur1 (talk • contribs)

@R S Thakur1: a) I never said that the page is about yourself; b) I never said that the page is meant for any kind of promotion; c) I did say that the page fails WP:GNG because the article does not cite any reliable independent source (see: WP:42), and because I myself cannot find any such source. According to Wikipedia's policy WP:BURDEN, the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That means that you, as a page creator, should provide references to reliable independent sources to prove that the subject passes WP:GNG. Wikipedia accepts all kinds of sources as long as they are reliable and independent; books and newspapers are perfectly acceptable. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

can you please close the spi

it has been open nearly a month, i have done nothing wrong Dannis243 (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dannis243: No, I can't. The policy prevents me from changing the status of the case two times in a row. Some other clerk may close the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

how can i arrange my presetation

im about to publish my fist article the challenge i have at hand is about arangementGuchkuch (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Guchkuch: I'm not sure what are you talking about. You already published one article titled "Ali Kiba". What exactly is the problem with the article? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

sigh

Take a look at the last discussion at Talk:RT (TV network). He goes from Ivan the Terrible to Galileo to Karl Rove to infinity and beyond. I hope Ymblanter shut him down, but I'm not optimistic. Katie^talk 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am obviously involved (blocked him before and I am his opponent in the discussion), so that I can not block him, and he does not understand any other signals.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie and Ymblanter: Can two of you join the #wikipedia-en-admins irc channel? I don't want to discuss it here, because he will come and then this page will become longer than the Bible. Vanjagenije (talk)

I am not on irc (been there twice in my life, for the Research Committee) and I am not sure whether I need a password for the channel, but you are welcome to discuss it without me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to set up a freenode name again, and I'll need a cloak. Been ages since I did IRC and last time I did was in the RC channel under my old username waaaayyy back before my RFA. If there's somebody on IRC that handles the cloaks who can do it now, sure. Katie^talk 17:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I am no expert on irc, so I don't know. Should I contact somebody on the IRC to help you? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Going through the process. I'll let you know. Katie^talk 17:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll be on as soon as Slakr grants me access to the channel. Katie^talk 17:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay - I think I'm in. Katie^talk 21:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: My nick is my username. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks! 2601:240:C701:45F0:29D3:1A7D:61A1:8AEF (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

{{SPI case status}}

For some reason, when an SPI is opened now, and the status is left blank, which is usual, its status at the SPI shows as "unknown". Callanecc made the last change to the template in June, and it appears to state that this is way it should work, but I don't think it did work this way until very recently (I just noticed it). I took one of the SPIs and added open to it, and it now shows as open even though the template appears to state that specifying open should also result in "unknown". As usual in these things, I have no clue what's going on. If you can shed some light on this, that would be greatly appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It's me. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Amalthea. I added changed the default "no status" from open to unknown and made "open" an actual triggered status like hold, moreinfo, etc. because it's what Amalthea said she needed for the bot -- your post says it works, but there are many moving pieces to modify along with this one if we do decide to go that way, and most of it is not done right now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Template:SPI case status/core was edited today. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• For the time being I've put back everything the way it was. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Vanja (for the pointer to the template - can't keep track of all the interlocking templates). Salvidrim!, it looks like in your subsequent conversation at Amalthea's Talk page, Tim believes that if the status is blank, it should default to open. The rest of it I sort of understood, although I'm not sure I understand what needs to be fixed and by whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, I understand it better now. The bot sometimes crawls reports that have been archived but for which the categories applied by the case-template haven't been removed yet due to MediaWiki lag -- and when the bot does not find a case template, it reports the status as "unknown" in the case list. The problem thus far is that this "unknown" status caused the cases in question to appear at the top of the case list, and "as if" they has an "open" status, because the caselist templates displayed cases under an "open" status as default when no other existing status matches. All I'd need to do (and that has been done) is to add a display option for cases reported by the bot as "unknown" so that they display as "unknown" and don't default to "open" because they don't match any documented status. As I've proposed, I don't think "unknown" is the best status to report these as and will see with Amalthea if she could tweak how the bot reports these cases in the caselist, so I can then adjust the caselist templates to display these reports how we want them. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, this special status caused by cases still being categorized (thus crawled by the bot) but which have been archived (thus no casetemplate) would only be something that would be reported by the bot to the caselist template and then displayed there in a non-confusing way until MediaWiki lag catches up and these stop being reported. It would not really be an "actual" case status (which would be illogical since the very existence of this would be because there is no longer a casetemplate). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh well, my job will be to complain if whatever anyone does is worse than it is now. Did you run this past Tim?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pethmakhama

Hello. I noticed your close, and want to point out that 178.152.28.45 was active on the article on 5 November, and 178.152.19.35 was active on the article today, both of them, based on their edits, obvious Pethmakhama socks and in the same IP-range as the IPs listed in the SPI, although not included in the list there. So closing the SPI because of inactivity is IMHO a bit premature... Thomas.W ^talk 11:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Thomas.W: Yes, sorry, you are right. I am going to re-open the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a very persistent editor who just refuses to listen and won't stop, in spite of multiple attempts to make them understand what the problem is (see for example this attempt to make them understand). Thomas.W ^talk 11:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Portlannd's edits - Serbia

What can we do about it? Report of some sort? Please act (I'm not certain where to write)... He has managed to destroy a previously solid article. Mm.srb (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mm.srb: Yes, I am watching the article, I see what's going on. Probably a wp:topic ban should be proposed at WP:ANI. I see no other solution. I'll write a complaint soon. Keep watching WP:ANI. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mm.srb: Sorry, it is WP:AN, not WP:ANI. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mm.srb: After examining the case carefully, I thought that the best way is to try to talk with Portlannd at his talk page first, so I left him a question. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I shall pay close attention to the newly started conversation. With some luck in hand, it will do the trick. Mm.srb (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Prerequistite for CU sleeper checks

I saw your close at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2sc945 of "There is no reason to expect sleepers here." For my information to avoid needless requests in the future, what is usually required to warrant a sleeper check? In the past, I have tagged long-term abusers who have serially opened new registered accounts. I don't recall having a request denied, but maybe it's because they—unknown to me—coincidentally met some other more stringent criteria. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I agree with Vanja's implicit decline of the CU request, although perhaps not for the same reasons. Per the archives, there are no non-stale puppets, confirmed or otherwise, to compare the latest account with. Thus, if I ran a CU, I'd be looking only at the newest alleged puppet. I rarely am inclined to do that. If, OTOH, you found two, even though there would be no previous data point, I would be more sympathetic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: See here for an explanation given by Bbb23 on when the sleepers check is needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, that's one (useful) example. There's not necessarily one answer on every case. Also, not every CheckUser will react the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije, @Bbb23: FWIW, an account created 05:53, 24 October 2015[11] was sniffed out by another CU as a confirmed sock of 2sc945, independent of an SPI, on November 1.[12] Granted, the account was created after I submitted my request, but before it was denied. I get that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and this didn't make the threshold. However, in line with my original thinking (and the benefit of hindsight), I believe that sockmasters that have serially recreated socks—it was already the third identified case when I originally requested the CU—should be afforded more weight as to the possibility of sleepers. Anyways, food for thought. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Congrats on the imminent mop. As an extension of WP:ADMINACCT, some will inevitably start (over-)analyzing your every word with the new bit. You probably meant to say "There is noinsufficient reason to expect sleepers here", and a pointer as to what is normally expected would have been even better. Obviously, I though there was a reason, even if it were to have been a misinformed reason. All the best.—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Thanks. 2sc945 created just five socks in the time span of five years. I still don't think it is serious enough to grant a sleepers check, but that is just my opinion. There is no strict policy on this question, so some other clerk or checkuser may agree with you that the check is appropriate. You may ask Bbb23 and Materialscientist about that. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a new CU to be done here, and I assume MS did due diligence however he stumbled upon the new ones.—Bagumba (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Next Polish parliamentary election

Dear Vanjagenije, you marked article Next Polish parliamentary election for speedy deletion marking it as recreation of a deleted page. I have no access to the deleted content so I cannot point the differences between these two articles but the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Polish parliamentary election before the deletion of the previous article says that that article contained prediction of the results and no date for election was gives. These were two main reasons you provided to justify deletion and none of these problems seems to reappear in the new article. Are you sure the new page is the recreation of the old page? Ed88 (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I think Vanjagenije is right for nominating Next Polish parliamentary election for deletion per G4 since its re-creation do not address the reasons for which the original material was deleted. Ed88, have you seen Polish parliamentary election, 2015? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wikicology: Yes, I have seen the article about 2015 elections and partially contributed to its current form. Ed88 (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ed88: As you can see in WP:Articles for deletion/Next Polish parliamentary election, the main reason for deleting the article was not the election results that were written in it. It was just mentioned as a peculiarity, but the reason the article was deleted is that there were no reliable sources that discussed the election. That fact has not changed. This new article still does not cite any reliable source that discuss this particular election (see: WP:CRYSTAL). So, the reason given for the deletion of the original page are still valid. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I cannot discuss the previous article and reasons for its deletion because I cannot read that version. I know which reasons where given in the discussion. Please let me know if there are any reliable sources discussing the following elections: Next Greek legislative election, Next Austrian legislative election, Next Belgian federal election, Next Czech legislative election, Next Dutch general election, Next Greek legislative election, Next Montenegrin parliamentary election, Next German federal election, Turkish general election, 2019. Why you are not arguing for deleting all of them? Maybe I should cite sources like this article about nominating PM after 2019 elections to make my article more reliable? Ed88 (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

While I don't personally know you very well (since I don't frequent SPI), I can still say that your efforts there are simply prolific and that denying you the mop is like throwing out the janitor with the blackwater. I wanted to congratulate you on your amazingly successful RFA (with the most astonishing support:oppose ratio Wikipedia has seen in a while!) with this special, shiny barnstar. Good luck with the mop! I'm so happy to see another brave administrator take to the mean streets of Wikipedia! --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 22:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@K6ka: Thank you very much. I'll give my best! Vanjagenije (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Congratulations! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Thanks. I never tried falafel, I hope I'll like it . Vanjagenije (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I made you a cheeseburger to congratulate you on your successful RFA. Make us proud as an admin EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@EurovisionNim: Uh, one of my favorite dishes! Vanjagenije (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob W. Stanley

I would have linked it to the archive myself, but am unsure of the correct mechanism. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: When you tell me to look something, please also explain me why should I look and what exactly to look for. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologise. What is obvious to me is not obvious to you. Unless my eyes deceive me the primary case page is not linked to the archive page. Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: The page just needs to be WP:purged (You can make a WP:null edit to purge the page). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for troubling you. I should have realised that. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)