Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006) five six seven (May 2007) eight (June 2007) nine (July 2007)

Thank You, I have gone through the policy and do accept that my initial post (it was unsigned) may have not adhered to the guidelines in the strictest sense of the word.

However, I am clear enough that my other insertions were all in line with the policy. Infact, it convinces me that the current page, which you all have so zealously protected isn't what it should have been, if guidelines were to be implemented in toto.

As far as re-insertion is concerned, it was only a logical response to mindless edits. The talk continues on the page but the responses in no way answer the queries which I have raised Ankush135 13:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested my block for arbitration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.91.131 (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please conclude the RfC on Talk:Serena (actress) page you initiated some time 2 months ago, and fix the Infobox on the main article page in accordance with your decision. Thank you. 66.232.153.106 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen has oversight which he regularly abuses, but no checkuser, or am I wrong? 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since I know that you're familiar with the classical languages, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explicatus and register your opinion, whatever it may be? (I promise that I'll get around to Six Ages of the World soon; I've just been very busy in real life lately.) Deor 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, while I greatly appreciate your judgement, I am just curious to know why you fancy ostrich's egg? [1] I would be happy if you indef my account which has served its purpose. Blurbarium 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look into this new puppet.Anwar 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you have previously removed a speedy tag on this article. Having just cleaned up the article (per the cleanup tag), and investigating some of the claims which would have generated notability, I have found that they are unsubstantiated by other sources. Specifically, the newspapers which have written her up are not themselves notable, and the article about the award she allegedly won does not corroborate that claim. If you can still identify any claims to notability please let me know, otherwise I will leave the tag there. Cheers. Jdcooper 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to look at a sock puppet investigation, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram, and see if it makes sense? Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the post that was here - you may want to check your history but I don't think you'll want it on your talk page. Kelpin 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I could ask for your advice. Another user has been accusing me of being a sock puppet both here [2] and here [3] I have asked him to make a formal complaint or withdraw the comment (I have even suggested that as you blocked me last time he might want to make the complaint to yourself) but he refuses to do both. I don't want to make an issue out of this, but I also don't want to get a reputation on Wikipedia for being a sock puppeteer. Can you suggest how I should approach this? Thanks. Kelpin 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Kahifarr revert warring here and here
• User:Kihim_barr revert warring here and here
• User:Bazaar4568 revert warring here
• User:Heavyweightlifter revert warring here and here
• User:KnowledgeHegemony
• User:Maya Rudolph revert warring here and here
• User:Goldstein Orwell revert warring here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here

Anwar 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be greatly obliged if you can help me in this issue.I was told to approach you as you were one of the impartial admins.I was blocked for something that was posted in my talk page which is the last place I would put something for others to see..[4].I came from one country to another with a group of students even my IP address belongs to my University.I have edited allowed my computer to be used by others and also university computers are used by others students as well mainly for studies,listening music,email etc rarely for editing Wikipedia in both countries and the use of the computer also corresponded to our examination schedule.I believe one of the students may have the said ID.But now it is vacation all the students except me have left my University.It seems the concerned user is abroad ,I think to either California/Texas/Lousiana or India where most of my friends have gone and is appealing for a admin to check his case and has put the tag wrong.[5].Now how do I go about if he does not appeal his ban.I seek nothing ,I served my ban .I am not appealing his ban.It is between him and Wikipedia.My name is mentioned which I would like to clear after serving the ban.I just want my name removed from his userpage or a checkuser done.Now a self request is likely to be declined as per normal policy.Harlowraman 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I got in touch simply because I saw you write on Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets a couple of times, so I assue you know the score about how cases are dealt with.

There is a case against me, and I know that I can't ask an admin to process the case. However I was wondering about two things.

1. Is it possible for you to either clear the current backlog so that my case can be dealt with faster by someone else, or for you to ask someone to clear the backlog but not my case?

2. A template was put on my talk page saying I had been accused of sockpuppetry. It linked to a list of points that mentioned here how if a checkuser request has to be made within 10 days I can remove the template - is that correct?

By the way, please reply on my talk page. Cheers, John Smith's 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your time. I have been doing other editing in the meanwhile, so will try to put this out of my mind more. :) John Smith's 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have admin powers, so you could block the confirmed socks of Ideogram? It will help remove the temptation for him to evade the ban. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus, I'd be very much obliged if you'd look into this for me. An aggressive IP is being extremely incivil on Talk:Men's rights. They have posted what I identify as an attack twice[6] [7]. I removed this and warned the IP the user was using at that time.[8] This user seems to be using at least a dynamic IP in Australia but maybe connected to a user making similar comments to Misandry using open proxies [9][10] (IPs 89.210.111.19 & 189.155.54.100 which have both been blocked). User:Edgarde identified these IPs as possible sock-puppets of the banned user Anacapa - I don't know whether they are or not. Can these comments be removed or am I wrong here--Cailil ^talk 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Akhilleus, I just wanted to be sure I was doing the right thing--Cailil ^talk 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you review SSP cases and just blocked User:Eeky. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975? It's been languishing w/o attention. Several different ediitors have submitted evidence... IPSOS (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, for considering my applications. What confuses me is that the IP address still looks like an obvious sockpuppet supporting two editors who have used up their 3 reverts.

How should I report an obvious sockpuppet when I don't know who's using it?

BTW the sockpuppet User:72.220.146.66 has also technically broken WP:3RR although the first revert is one I've also had to do myself at [11]--Peter cohen 12:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a new obvious sock, User:Kremm. See [12]. IPSOS (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they got two of them. We should have seen that one coming and semi-protected the AfD when the others were blocked. IPSOS (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, Pleasereviewcarefully (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Check contribs for evidence. IPSOS (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any confirmation as to whether or not he was a sockpuppet? I thought the evidence was pretty strong. 64.131.205.111 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then why was my account taken away and his allowed to remain? I behaved far better and was a very good vandal hunter. I stated I would not use multiple accounts. I never used meatpuppets like he did. What was different?

With the evidence things can be implied but no admin stated that we confirm that this is him! 64.131.205.111 02:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i see you handled the sockpuppet case i made. I wanted to ask you, after the block expires and if similar edits continue, what should be done? -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  03:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, wouldn't getting a RFPP for a page be worse in the sense that it would be difficult to monitor the persons edits because they can simply make a new account, therefore escaping blocks?-- LaNicoya  •Talk•  03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not severe, it is mainly trying to introduce wrong information, pushing pov, removing legitimate information which is sourced, things of that nature. Of course, before the first block it was worst, lack of civility, accusing editors (mainly myself) of being racist, ect. The user mostly focuses of the Nicaragua article (tourism section) and the El Salvador article.-- LaNicoya  •Talk•  03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please do me a favour? I'd like you, who is an admin, to edit that page, by adding a sentence saying that if the person who wish to register found that the desired name is already been registered, he/she/it may go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to request for using that username, if that username has no log at all (Except user creation log). I make this request because once I've changed my name from Edmundkh, then re-register with that name. Now I'm regret for doing that, so I'd like to help the person who wish to register with that name.
Thanks for helping! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful and honored to be still here, as you considered and decided justly in this case, having weighed all the evidence and my good faith. Actually, as I stated, when I registered here, due to my little knowledge of wiki rules, I used user:judgefloro, and them I registered this one, because I preferred this one and told User:FisherQueen that I would no longer use the first account; thus I consistently used this, but I committed a mistake in editing my own article and was warned by her, so I admitted the minor mistake, she re-wrote Florentino V. Floro. As to user User:Juanatoledo it is good that you blocked the account so that as I stated I do not know that one, and I submitted my own stance that many enemies and detractors had been pestering me using my name in other forums etc., and I concluded that I was used, without my knowledge.

Thanks again, and regard, good luck.

--Florentino floro 04:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for the many hours of work you did Aug. 22-23 clearing up the backlog of sockpuppetry cases. This is the kind of work that helps keep Wikipedia running smoothly. --Coppertwig 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I add my thanks regarding the backlog, in particular the User:Jebbrady case (and that you took the trouble to help coach him on his talkpage). FYI, he's now the subject of this RFC/U. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus, and allow me add to the thanks you have been receiving for your work in clearing the backlogs. Thanks! I do have a question as well: You recently reviewed and blocked Eeky for being a sock puppet. Now Gamer Eek (talk · contribs) has appeared, and at even a passing glance it seems quite clear that this is another sock puppet of Eep². Does a whole new case need to be opened or do you have discretion to take action without that? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer. Cheers, --Paul Erik 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation—much appreciated! --Paul Erik 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus, sorry to bother you with this again but the IPs at Talk:Men's rights are at it again.[13] I've removed the comments again and warned the latest one (User:211.28.114.219) with {{Uw-multipleIPs}}. If this continues should I bring it to WP:ANI?

These comments have been posted yet again at Talk:Men's rights and also on Talk:Project Gender studies by another IP in the series user:211.28.8.5. as it stands there are now 5 IPs for the one user (User:211.28.114.219, User:211.28.7.95, User:211.28.7.81, User:211.28.8.5 & User:211.28.25.39)--Cailil ^talk 10:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to make unsupported personal attacks on people on Wikipedia talk pages. That's not what talk pages are for. Discussion of source reliability can be made without inflammatory language. FCYTravis 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your personal grudges and religious biases. Quit monkeying around and behaving like a "maladroit hack".Bakaman 04:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FayssalF, I was wondering if you could remove the protection on Teresa Nielsen Hayden--it looks like the situation that led to the edit war has been resolved, and on the talk page an editor has mentioned that he wanted to add some sources but couldn't edit the article. I'd remove the protection myself, but since I recently edited the article I probably shouldn't. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus. I stepped once at that article Mother Teresa recently while i was dealing w/ unrelated case involving the now indef blocked User:Phral and User:Muntuwandi when i found out about another issue. The issue is found at MT talk page or for more details you can check this thread at my talk page here.

Since you intervened in a double CU request on Aug. 22 made by User:Peter cohen re User:Anietor and User:Majoreditor, i thought you can help me sort out an issue involving the subject of the CU. According to the information i could get from Peter, i know from where the IP was hailing and to whom it is connected. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying Akhilleus. As you now know the background and the fact that i'd consider myself a bit involved though not really as you've seen so i'd appreciate if you leave a note to Anietor about it and re WP:OWN as well. A note from me would be just treated wrongly by him. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Augustus#intro. It's on FAC, and it's all like that. Care to join in? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Green108 (2nd)? Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing extremely disruptively on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and has also created a POV fork of it at History of the Brahma Kumaris movement which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Brahma Kumaris movement. While I didn't file the sockpuppet report, I agree that this is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). IPSOS (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for defending my comment on the Witzel talk page. Substantiating it could fill a book, but that would have been quite off-topic. As it happens, her "work" has come up before, e.g here and here. One of her "classics" -- it got copy-pasted, plagiarised, paraphrased and embellished all over a certain predictable section of blogspace -- was this, indeed a good example of her essential style and oeuvre. (It took Koenraad Elst to point out to the Frothing Fringe -- alluded to here -- that the quote attributed to Farmer was actually a quote not of Farmer but of the subject of his dissertation, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola -- but, naturally, no one was paying attention, and no one in her circle does anyway. And as for the innuendo in "Herr Witzel", I'm sure that our "meticulous and correct" columnist would be the last person on earth to inquire into the ethnicity of Witzel's wife.) I suppose we should be thankful that Patung, as far as I know, isn't an editor on WP ;-) rudra 05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know, that, after you closed the SSP report on Gtadoc, discussion began on the talkpage. I'm not sure if that matters or not, but, I thought I'd let you know. --SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an explanation of the finding that there was no violation of policy. The policy very clearly, and repeatedly, states that any show of support is a violation, not just voting. It takes quite a while to make such a case, since links and diffs are required, and it can be complicated. The closing of the case seemed abrupt and without much explanation. A little more communication would be appreciated.Bsharvy 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for the time you spent on this. Please read the policy on sockpuppets. It explicitly states that violations are not limited to voting. These are violations:

• "Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes...using more than one account in discussions such as ... on talk pages."
• "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists."

So I don't understand why you only talk about double-voting. The definition of a violation is not restricted to double-voting. Maybe the policy that is applied does not reflect the policy that is written. If so, please edit the policy page so it is accurate. If the policy page stated the policy you just stated--that only double-voting is a violation--I wouldn't have spent nearly an hour making the report.Bsharvy 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user argues the same way as an old disruptive user, he has an unusual understanding of Wikipedia despite the fact he has never edited a page before the ones listed, and motive can be found in the fact that an administrator warned the original user from engaging in this very behavior and disruptive editing. How can this not be seen a suspected sockpuppet? The Filmaker 00:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Ankush135 is a sock of the troll called Bharatveer. (I am just Kuntan.)Pickled herring red 06:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That made me laugh, Akhilleus.no offece taken or meant.:)59.91.254.94 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the same a** applying sock template on Hornplease and Doldrum.59.91.254.94 13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, 203.112.84.138 on which Ankush is socking is a proxy, Google it and you can see.59.91.254.20 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider:

• Semi-protecting Joe Szwaja and Jean Godden
• Check [14] for WP:NLT.
• Check [15] for WP:NLT.

There's a case open at WP:COIN already. I think we need to pour ice water on the combatants. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with these guys already. See User_talk:Raymond_arritt#User:Landsfarthereast. The diffs don't look like NLT territory to me; though he goes on about "liable" he's talking about it in terms of community based action and not the legal system. I've dug through this stuff a bit and what we seem to have is two partisan political editors going at it. User:Landsfarthereast is more aggressive and uncivil but both look like they're POV-pushing and I'd hesitate to block one but not the other (unless LFE goes completely round the bend on his threats). I don't see where semiprotecting would help much since most of the kerfluffle is between registered users. Raymond Arritt 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I appreciate some very distanced editors coming in to the mini edit war that I somehow got dragged into between the two registered editors. I took issue with some unsourced material and then copyrighted material and got dragged through the mud by one of the editors. I hope some sort of consensus can be reasonable reached. POV pushing is going on strong and as long as it is at least cited, I am going to stay out of deleting content.201.240.31.236 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that this IP user isn't one of the edit warriors or another COI party. The first contribution is a copyright violation notice. That's overly sophisticated for a new user. The 201's contributions focus heavily on the articles in question. I'm thinking RFCU. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I enjoy being thought of as some sort of sophisticated cabal aligned with a COI party in an out of the way largely uncontested city council race in Seattle, I am sitting at my computer in Lima, Peru editing articles of interest. I have not registered to date, but am thinking I will - it might take away a lot from sockpuppet charges or claims of COI. You can certainly do an RFCU - I am nowhere near the other two editors and not involved in either campaign (in fact, I think they both have some significant issues). I do take issue with POV and unsourced content and the record of this Szaja guy beating up his girlfriend and then trying to whitewash it. None of my edits have been unsourced (they go back before the copyright notice by the way, I have have a dynamic IP, so just look for 201.240 and you will see my edits). I have been focused on Seattle issues and hope to expand broader at some point, but have to jump off somewhere. I respect the contributions of both Raymond Arritt and Jehochman. I am less enthralled by some of the recent patrol bots that seem to take any editing as vandelizing without human though involved.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.31.236 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, you may want to note there's also an ANI thread on this [16]. Raymond Arritt 22:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: Abuse of Warning Templates, Stalking. The user feels that you closed the ssp report inappropriately, and a clarification on the close may be needed. Cheers. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm the blocked User:Bormalagurski. I see you reseted my block to one more year because i wrote 3 articles - did no vandalism. BTW, i could've easily not revealed that I was Bormalagurski, but I thought that writing a few articles wouldn't hurt and since i revealed that i had a sockpuppet, i obviously didn't want to use it anymore. If you don't want to revoke my block, it's pointless for me to have the Bormalagurski account, because I want to forget about my past and start writing constructive articles. Please delete my Bormalagurski page/account/whatever you can, i don't care anymore. I don't want to have "blocked" on my page when someone searches my name on google, if you know what i mean. If you feel that the new block is not really neccessary, leave the old one and i'll continue to write articles after the block expires, as per arbitration comitee decision. Whatever you do, don't leave it like this, please, i'm tired of being a prisoner of my past, i want to start a new page. you can block this account too if you want.. --KasterJeShupak 08:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]