Partly done Talked with another oversighter and we both agreed that revision delete was sufficent in this case. Future oversight requests should go directly to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, to be clear. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from, WP:Multiple Accounts. I have three accounts in Wikipedia: 1. User:trulytito (created in 2009), I stopped using this account since this my Gmail username (I was getting lots of spam mails at that time, so changed all public "trulytito" username, Facebook, Twitter etc) 2. User:Tito Dutta I created it sometime in 2010 perhaps and later forgot about this account and since Wikipedia allows to create multiple accounts from same email id (I don not know at that time) I created the third account User:Titodutta, which is my current account, I have 12,000+ edits from this account in last one year.

• I have not used other two accounts in this one year. In User:Tito Dutta account I have added a redirect tag (to this account).
• Can you please delete User:Tito Dutta and rename this User:Titodutta account User:Tito Dutta (that is my real full name). I don't like the way people call me Hi Titodutta? --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, NoCal's socking has been out of hand for quite some time. AGK, if you would like to lend a hand in diminishing the ability of his socks to continue flouting multiple indefinite bans, please, by all means, let me know. Or, if you would like to help stop the never ending support these obvious socks get from those who wish to "put a stop" to the reporting of these socks, that would also help. nableezy - 18:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File an SPI like everyone else. TC is not your personal CU.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nontransparent gitmo-esque indefinite detention based on secret evidence is completely against the spirit of wikipedia. At a minimum, an uninvolved admin should be taking care of it, not someone who many editors find thoroughly biased. Particularly since the evidence seems to be behavioral rather than technical (or as TC put it "checkuser results that are not inconsistent with the conclusion of socking"), which is often subjective and open to interpretation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TC isn't a CU, much less my personal anything. He is however an admin, and an uninvolved one to boot, who is quite familiar with one of the more prolific sock-operators in the topic area, a person whose socks many people *cough cough* actively seek to protect as it suites their own objectives here. There is no requirement that an SPI be filed for a CU, there is no requirement that you be told the evidence, there is no requirement that you be able to choose who I may ask to look at a problem. I realize that TC gets grief because he deals with such a problem, and I worry that I open him up to the hysterically asinine charge of bias by asking him to perform such a task, so if at any time that he no longer wishes to deal with this problem I'll ask another admin (if somebody like HelloAnnyong is open to it, I could start asking him). Abusive sockpuppetry is bad and is against the "spirit of wikipedia". All such socks in the topic area should be blocked. That is not a partisan issue. Why some of you insist on making it one is one of the things that I have not been able to wrap my head around. nableezy - 06:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to help you wrap your head around it. You only report suspected socks with a certain political opinion, which happens to be the opposite of yours. TC has a history of supporting you. The evidence is secret. There is no record of it. The block is made on behavioral rather than technical evidence. I find it hard to believe you can't see how some people would find all this problematic. I don't need or want to see the evidence. What I do want is the process to be free of bias, and at least transparent to other admins. Some record that X filed a complaint and Y acted on it would also be nice, since as it is now people just disappear because someone sent off wiki information to their friendly admin with no record of the proceedings. This is also something I think you probably understand looks quite problematic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The premise that TC has a history of supporting me is unsupported. The evidence is sent in private as publicly sharing it allows for a greater likelihood of NoCal's getting away with continued socking. Given the fact that he had two editors banned in the same ArbCom case, vanished before being banned in another, and has continued to sock this entire time, even demanding enforcement of the very bans that he is subject to, I am sure you can probably understand why your insistence that he be given further information to allow him to escape detection quite problematic. I don't think TC is a "friendly admin". I think he is a reasonable one. The only off-wiki contact I have had with him, with one exception about a different issue (which was obvious from on-wiki actions), has been regarding NoCal (and all of that off-wiki contact has been one-way, I don't even know his email address). Many other admins have seen much of the same evidence, and TC has routinely offered anybody wishing to review an unblock request the very same evidence that he has. That has happened on at least one occasion, and probably more as I often stop watching your pal's many account's talk pages once they are blocked. I dont have to post on his talk page saying that I have sent him an email, I do it so that there is as much transparency in the process as possible, but watching how NoCal's boosters come to his aid gives another reason to do so. Finally, the blocks are made on more than behavioral evidence, to claim otherwise disregards all evidence to the contrary (including the last message on my talk page from TC). nableezy - 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of politics, the others in this discussion are displaying a good bit of "non-denial denial". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since your stated reluctance to proceed in a transparent manner is based on a concern of compromising NoCal socking evidence but you seek "as much transparency in the process as possible", presumably you would have no objection to disclosing which user T.Canens described as "The other is geographically unrelated per CU, so I'm not blocking it right now" in response to your CU request.Ankh.Morpork 12:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. You arent entitled to anything, nobody here is, with the exception of AGK. As transparent as possible means that those who are in a position to judge the evidence are free to do so. That does not include those editors who slyly smile and wink as NoCal gives them a few extra reverts. nableezy - 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC) 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least you are transparent about your lack of transparency. Why do you assert that I condone NoCal100's conduct; this defamatory claim requires substantiation. Ankh.Morpork 10:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy has an unbeaten record for sock detection, as even his detractors must admit. The objections are,(a) they are all pro-Israeli socks (b) he hands his evidence to TC, and it is secret. In reply to (a) it's not Nableezy's fault that most sockpuppetry in the I/P area comes from one 'side'. (b)The simple way round this, which would relieve the burden from TC, and allow these suspicions to vanish, would be to get someone like AGK to see if four or five admins in the CU area would list themselves as ready to take up such evidence, and rotate each claims, so that the checkuser in each case or the admin involved would be selected randomly. I'm sure something like this is needed. It is quite unfair to keep up this whispering barrage about a bloke who is just doing a job, esp. since the innuendoes come from people who do not appear to be troubled if the sock happens to support their POV. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You proclaim "most sockpuppetry in the I/P area comes from one 'side'." Those Jews are quite sneaky. What should be the solution?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The implication in that quip is beyond the pale, and I hope a sitting arbitrator knows what to do with it, and to the person who made it. nableezy - 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I of course share your sentiments about Nishidan's quip.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, you're back barely a day and already you create drama. Coming off your topic ban you pronounce your return with all this pomp and fanfare, proclaiming "guess who's bizzack". Then you immediately go into revert mode, two in rapid succession[2][3] I note that in the latter revert you selectively removed information based on the fact that it was "unsourced nonsense." but you left the other "unsourced nonsense" namely that Hamas is a "parliamentary democracy," intact. Can you even say that with a straight face? You were topic banned for 6 months and barely made 5 substantive edits during that period and now you once again start fights and discourse within the topic area. Unfortunately, most of us don't have the time to be on wikipedia all day so you'll end up filibustering and filing your AEs and chasing your ghosts and emailing your fav admin, until all of us give up and tire of you. Here's a suggestion, try being nice for a change and stop making wikipedia miserable for everyone who doesn't share your PoV.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to draw attention to your continued poor editing, by doing such things as hounding my edits to place a patently unreliable source in an article, an article you had never before edited, without once saying a word to justify such an action on the talk page, then by all means, please proceed. Or if you would like to enlighten us on the background story of how a "fav admin" lifted your indefinite ban after a few short months, a ban that resulted due to your, apparently continued, misrepresentation and use of poor sources, then please feel free. I trust AGK has seen enough of this, so I'll be ignoring further whining by those who have a habit of sticking up for their favorite sock operators, and I'll continue letting admins who are willing to deal with problem now about further NoCal socks. All of this noise, just so that you can protect an abusive sock puppeteer who has chased scores of editors off, both before and after being banned. Nice to know the character of your interlocutor, I must admit. nableezy - 00:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you chosen AGK's talkpage to open this thread on, Jiujitsuguy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if something like Nishidani's suggestion were implemented, that would solve the problem as far as I'm concerned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Id be fine with that too. The more the merrier. nableezy - 05:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a bit more, I think the simplest and most transparent way to do it would be for Nableezy to file an SPI report saying he has a suspected sock based on evidence he thinks should not be publicly available, an admin will note he's willing to look at it, Nableezy sends his stuff off wiki and then the admin will note the result (yes/no behavioral/technical).

That way there's as much transparency as possible, there's a record of who was suspected of being a sock, if they were blocked and why, the whole pool of SPI admins are involved, and the secret evidence is not exposed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather curious that A8875 (talk · contribs)turned up the day after AB9715 (talk · contribs) was indef'd, and then went straight to the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. In behavioural terms, I don't see any reason to suspect that these accounts are related. AGK [•] 16:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, May I ask that you review the access applications? I have had one sat there for over two months now! Mdann52 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I've added you to the access list. Enjoy! AGK [•] 16:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{you've got mail}} NewtonGeek (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For closing this. Much appreciated. Keep your fork, there's pie (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. You may like to keep handy a diff of my comment on that page, for future reference. AGK [•] 18:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could [as a CheckUser], be able to get a list of IPs that I have used recently? I use public computers and university labs. I have reason to believe that other users have used the IPs I may have used, in disruptive manners. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we do not release data in that way on the English Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations Whether or not to request a check > In these cases, do not request CheckUser > Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence", in which section the guidance given also applies to any request for checkuser data about your own account (even if framed as a 'security check'). If you have compelling evidence that your Wikipedia account has been hacked, send it to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (by e-mail). AGK [•] 14:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I asked only because I have physically seen people vandalise Wikipedia from the systems which I normally use. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk to Newyorkbrad. Zsf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.204.249 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About what, please? AGK [•] 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AGK,

I noticed that you have commented on Toddst1's blocking behaviour. A few years ago I was a very active wiki editor. I really enjoyed the project, and got along well with many other wiki editors, until one day I was accused of being a sock by Toddst1. I happened to provide edits to a topic which I have Master level education which received some complaints. I civilly tried to have a conversation via the talk page. During this time, another editor from another continent provided support for my cause. This editor had issues in the past, they were block for 3rr and edit wars. Without looking at the evidence, Toddst1 simply blocked me, applying an indefinite block as he accused me of being a sock. All my hard work over many projects was reverted with a simple click via twinkle, and I was no longer able to edit. As a result I left wikipedia and vowed not to return, as I felt that I was not valued.

I am sure that I am not the only editor who has ran into this issue. I would like to point out that Toodst1s stats suggest that he blocks more editors than the average admin. If wikipedia is to be viewed as a creditable source, admins need to be able to identify who adds value and who does not. In my case, I was blocked without cause and wiki lost valuable edits and a contributor who respected the project.

Best, Bibbnm (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, I have only criticised Toddst1 once, and you give me no reason to think that there is a pattern of incompetent or abusive actions by this administrator. Unless there is evidence of misconduct, generalised allegations are unacceptable and damaging. AGK [•] 22:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AGK, I just wanted to express my experience. While I can list 'behaviour evidence' as support -if he is willing to be short with an admin (yourself), how is he with others? Further evidence of Toddst1's blocking history clearly shows, if not abuse, a lack of professionalism expected from an admin. I think it is worthwhile for someone to keep an eye out for reckless behaviour. Like you, I seek to make wiki the best source of knowledge. Best, Bibbnm (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 1st time I was filing such a sock report, so I might have gone about it wrong. Actually if you look at the edit history of the page, the person I suspect to be a sock creates a new account every few months to only edit on this article (or to add references of the subject to other articles). The pattern repeats itself with every suspected sock I posted above, and will most likely repeat itself based on past history. Although only the last 2 socks were within this year, the last one was ion 27th July 2012 , and the suspected sock cycled through 7 identities in 2011 alone. In the event of that the pattern repeats, is there a better way of dealing with it? Zhanzhao (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]