This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Chewweh (talk · contribs) is caught in a checkuser block you placed on 81.103.26.175 (talk · contribs). Could you take a look? Here is at least one IP for comparison (first glance appears related). Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking 121.6.236.4 for me. For that vandal to initiate off-wiki actions against me is very worrisome. I take comfort in the fact that I reside in the US (and that I am willing to bet he is not going to fly from Singapore to here and do any bodily harm to me), and that he will not be able to do much. However, what he has done against my business is highly illegal. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baintha_Brakk&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_disasters&action=history

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola,

In addition to the socks you reverted, I could point to another 6-12 pages I found with one or more sock edits in the past couple days. As a checkuser account, any suggestions? I think I got most of them, but it's obvious this isn't going to stop and I'd be intrigued to know what other pages were edited. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll try to get this done over the next day or so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a list, it may not be comprehensive but it's all the ones I've tracked down over the past couple days. See User talk:WLU/RFC#RE socking again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on contributions from User:Arthur Rubin, I think I've got a fairly complete list (updated a couple minutes ago). Since the socking seems to have settled down, there's no real need to hurry on this. Thanks, again, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we covered them all. Thanks again. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice in the conclusions your findings regarding the suspected related IPs. Are those findings not published to the Wiki, or were they not run at all? Unitanode 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You should know that Melonite is now concocting some story using his HobbieP account about being coworkers, or former coworkers, or something like that. Perhaps being more blunt about just how many IPs were associated, and how strong the evidence is and such. What do you think? Unitanode 19:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This comment. How much impact would there be if we simply hardblocked the IP range for a month or three? I can't believe that we have a huge group of UAE editors, and the handful we have can always be granted a block exemption on request.—Kww(talk) 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few dozen legitimate editors on every single IP. When I tried checking the /19 range, I got a notice that there were over 5,000 contributions from that range in the last three months. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me that there are a few dozen editors. The range seems very dynamic, and it would surprise me if editors are staying associated with a single IP for very long. Is there an easy way to find out how many distinct editors there are across the whole range, or do your tools only report on a per IP basis?—Kww(talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tools only list edits. They don't keep a tally of the number of contributors or anything like that. I suppose I could count, but I guarantee the /19 range has at least a few hundred editors. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nishkid64. I translated Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état and nominated it to FA. In Spanish Wikipedia we are more stringent to approve articles, if the candidate has any problem, could you help me clarifying my doubts? Thanks a lot, ~~×α£đ~~^es 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see for your self hes getting very abusive now calling editors "bastards" yet I think you forgot to revert his edits on several articles as you know I am only reverting his trashy racist remarks could you revert his edits if not you will probably know I will go elsewhere and will eventually get it done but it seems better if you do it as you know the situation of Hkelkar more than anyone else here are the articles [1],[2] (I know you are Indian but your a admin so you should not allow pov pushing Hkelkar to edit),[3],[4](I think you know why he removed this info),[5],[6] As i said before If you dont want to revert the banned users edit i can go elsewhere and get it done but again it would look better if you do it and would make you look better to as it seems you have sided for Hkelkar for now as you both share the same heritage cheers 86.156.215.149 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] the specific sentence which urked our Hkelkar sock 86.156.215.149 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note i believe i have stayed very patient even though you had protected several articles with Hkelkars edits such as Slum and others i could go on yet you seem to be blaming this on me ? 86.156.215.149 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the page to the most NPOV version. I will continue to rv and protect pages to the version that is most neutral. Hkelkar considers me to be pro-Nangparbat, and you consider me pro-Hkelkar. To be honest, I don't care what either of you guys think. To me, you're both nationalist edit warring trolls. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid both of them need to be reverted/ blocked on sight ( similar to shoot at sight in real world). I dont think they will add anything of any value to WP. no point arguing and debating with them. They are both incorrigible and you are wasting your valuable time. just my 2 centsWikireader41 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are going to mediate on Recognition of the Armenian Genocide there is little point in protecting the page. I have put in 2 RFCs on this and a related issue they attracted no additional editors. Although I am willing to discuss this further with user:Gazifikator as his/her was the last edit, it is unlikely that he/she will reply to my last talk page posting. --PBS (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will mediate the dispute. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should check back in YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this guy? He's back now, and is edit-warring like crazy again. 4R on Himare [8] [9] [10] [11]. Also 3R on Spyros Spyromilios and Lunxhëri. This is a revert-only nationalist SPA, and I think it's high time for some sort of ARBMAC sanction such as revert limits. I though of posting on WP:AN3 but decided to come to you instead, as you are already familiar with him. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the SPAs might be socks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks clean to me. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...is getting this guy: User talk:Btomant. No idea if this is the person you wanted to stop or not; I suspect it it, but I thought I'd pass it off to you to deal with. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working the article Grief porn, I am encountering lots of difficulty with the anon user 99.141.251.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA who's used about four different accounts and almost 500 hundred edits to push a single agenda in the article.
Dealing with the contributor is difficult itself enough, but I cannot seem to get him/her to stop refactoring the DYK notice. They've done it at least twice (1, 2), pointing to an apparent consensus of one: (his/hers). We don't try to rewrite the past in this way, and every single time I've mentioned this, the anon does whatever the hell they want. I am right up to the line where I head over to AN/I and call for them to be indef banned - a situation which I am increasingly convinced that a) the anon has been through before under another account name, and b) that the AN/I is a foregone conclusion. They know too much about wiki rules and are too uncivil to not be an indef blocked user. I've reverted it twice.
I am tired of the wikidrama this user is bringing to the table. That, coupled with his/her need to turn the wiki into a battlefiled, has me at the very edge of filing an N/I complaint. As you are all about the easing of drama, might I ask you to step in and help the user see the light? If they keep up this behavior, I'm going to have to report them. As this is just wikidrama, and keeps me and others from actually editing, I'd prefer not to go this route, but I am just about done with this user. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I think I know who this IP editor actually (is). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me with a list of his previous IPs? His behavior is disruptive, and if he is indeed the same person who harassed you a few months ago, I could put in a rangeblock to keep his tendentious editing off Wikipedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. Give me 'til the end of the day; I've meetings all over the place in and out of the office. Thanks for listening. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The former user's IP always began with 75.57.X.X, thusly, the link to the ban discussion can be found here, and the related RfCU. The ban resulted after the attempted solution of asking the user to avoid editing in areas where I was failed in less than an hour. The 99 anon is a WP:SPA tht has edited nowhere but at Grief porn an article that I created and have edited extensively in. Here is a short listing of those IPs of this specific anon that coincide with the current 99.anon, using this tool to determine locale:

• 75.49.223.52 (Glendale Heights, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.2.250.145 (Chicago, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.62.44 (Streamwood, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.200.103 (Carol Stream, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.201.254 (Schaumburg, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.36.51 (Wheaton, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.39.148 (Aurora, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.57.10 (Chicago, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.34.144 (Glendale Heights, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.186.159 (Roselle, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.39.201 (Aurora, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.196.81 (Downers Grove, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.205.163 (Roselle, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.205.135 (Roselle, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.160.195 (Glen Ellyn, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.178.160 (Chicago, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.171.204 (Des Plaines, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.181.83 (Batavia, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.198.129 (Geneva, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.201.254 (Schaumburg, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.49.50 (Roselle, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 76.202.249.62 (Wheaton, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 76.217.93.176 (Schaumburg, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 76.224.68.237 (South Elgin, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.3.133.232 (Chicago, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.165.180 (Elgin, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.57.200.103 (Carol Stream, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.32.90 (Saint Charles, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 75.58.44.23 (Crystal Lake, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net

Note that these cities are all located within a 60-mile radius from one another. The following IPs all fit within this radius, like a Venn diagram subset::

• 99.141.251.67 (Bollingbrook, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 99.142.2.89 (Glen Ellyn, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 99.142.2.142 (Glen Ellyn, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 99.144.192.208 (Arlington Heights, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net
• 99.135.175.107 (Naperville, IL) - dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net

As I noted before, it was the similarity in editing style that led me to check the IP locales - getting from 75, to 99. is not an intuitive choice. the use of the repetitive, disruptive arguments, the specific choice to forego indenting when discussing, and the excessive repetition of previous conversations, creating a wall of text. The final thing was that every time I would post a section in the anon's usertalk space linking to the prior IPs, the user would shortly thereafter reboot their DSL modem and start editing from a new IP address.

Now, of course, i could be wrong, which is why I am seeking some confirmation. I've been told I am bad at presenting evidence, so also tell me how I could have presented this info better. I would like to put this matter to rest, as its sucked up a ton of time that could have been used to expand the article. It's currently facing deletion precisely because expansion has been put on hold to deal with the disruptive editing. I'd prefer to get the article up to snuff, and quickly.

Thanks for taking the time to examine my evidence. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the same guy who was harassing us, his IPs were all 75 and came from Rockville, ILAggiebean (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but I don't think so. Rockville, Illinois is at least an hour away from any of the places listed above. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd also point out another point of refernce as well: The 75 anon used to claim that his/her anonymous posts were set apart from others by the use of the symbol "♠". Currently, in the AfD for Grief porn, the 99 anon has taken to making the text of all of his/her posts smaller than the norm. Is it time to pull the plug on this fellow? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IPs are all over the place, I don't know what good a rangeblock will really do. I'll have to do some more investigating and get back to you no that. For now, I've blocked the 99 anon. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a couple of questions. First, what happens to the user's contributions on various AfD votes, noticeboards and article/article discussions? Does it get noted? Purged? I've seen both, and know what i'd prefer, but I am too close to this to do anything more than notify.

Second question, when you say the IPs are all over the place, are you speaking of numerical or geographic range? I can understand the hassles are not outweighed by the net benefit. I think that's the advantage of the IP account for the troll - it isn't worth our efforts to block someone using a mobile device or a disorganized ISP assignment of IPs. Would it assist if I were to contact the ISP and identify the user, or at least ask that the user be flagged as an IP vandal here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean numerically. To my knowledge, contacting ISPs regarding anon. harassment is usually a tedious process that seldom produces the desired result. You could just tag the IP as a sockpuppeteer and deal with him as he comes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks very much for blocking the various versions of this persistent SPA. I don't think he made any edits which haven't been reverted. He certainly wasted enough of my time. Just out of interest, what were his other incarnations? Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He previously operated under Oghuz turkish, Spider 2200 and various IPs. I've blocked two IP ranges to subdue his future editing. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Judging from editing patterns, I reckon these two throwaway accounts are very likely to be him too: Chae jung (talk · contribs) and Emperor of world (talk · contribs). Emperor 2345 (talk · contribs) is another possibility. --Folantin (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention Emperor of world as well. Thanks for catching the other two;  Confirmed as socks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who had to deal with the mess this guy kept inflicting on Wikipedia nicknamed him the "Persian Imperialist" editor, from his habit of inserting the phrase "Persian Empire" into absolutely every article he could find to do with Iran. He also has a thing about Korean Wave (hence the Chae Jung moniker). He makes little attempt to disguise his MO and his obsessions so future incarnations should be easy to deal with. But thanks again for pulling the plug on this persistent annoyance. --Folantin (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might have another reincarnation in the form of Turcopole new (talk · contribs). Compare and contrast. --Folantin (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked the account and an IP range. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your recent edit summary confused me on Thomas Gold - your summary was "expand", but you removed material? I self-reverted back to your last edit ... agf :-) Vsmith (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did I? I make edits during the day at work and I sometimes lose track of what text I'm adding/removing. That was the correct edit, but wrong edit summary. While I have you here, would you be interested in possibly peer reviewing this article? Gold's bio- and geophysics work seems to be right up your alley! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an alley? ... Took a pass thru and added links, fixed a bit and took a bit of abio/bio quibbling out. May do more later. Vsmith (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any help is much appreciated! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could see of the rest of the book, I don't think I made the right choice including it in the first place. It might not be unreliable per se, but it didn't seem too scholarly either. The sentence still has two citations and I'll check again later on a different PC to see if I can view page 292 and will reconsider then. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 July, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Ivo Sanader, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to meet me. ;) Anyway, this user - someone who you apparently have sent off to sit in the corner - dropped me a line, trying to pull me into to this little thing he and Aggiebean have going on. I advised Agg to file an RfCU and essentially edit quietly until the muffins are done - one way or the other. Apart from that, I've had my fill of dramahz for the month; perhaps you want to address this? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RBI. It's the ravings of a conspiracy nut. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply to one, or both. I posted what I thought was a reasonable, neutral response to both parties, trying to impart my expeirence with this sort of dramahz. If you think its best, i will >poof!< the whole thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both, since they're both blocked now. You can be sensible, but I find it difficult to reform behaviors and attitudes already set in stone. Best, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is being affected by a checkuser block of yours. I'm considering granting him IPBE but he has a pretty short edit history. Could you take a look and confirm my opinion that this is an unrelated user? Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 16:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That IP has been exclusively used by Billhits over the last three months. In the last day and a half, I've received three unblock requests from that residential IP alone. I'm going to go ahead and block this account indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I checked! From a preliminary look at Billhits' edits it looked like they were in rather different areas. Mangojuice^talk 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you blocked User:Ostateczny_Krach_Systemu_Korporacji for being a sock of a banned user, but I can't find the evidence anywhere. I'm a trainee clerk at SPI, so could you point me to where I should be looking? Thanks!--Aervanath (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few editors had previously brought up concerns that this user was HanzoHattori. This plus the user's surprising depth of knowledge of WP led me to conduct a CU investigation. I determined that the IP this user was operating on was previously used by HanzoHattori late last year. To make sure, I checked the MO and found that a few articles edited by this user had been exclusively edited in the past by HanzoHattori and his socks. Well, if the shoe fits... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. However, at present it seems the block log is the sole record of the CheckUser evidence that non-CheckUsers can see? Isn't there somewhere else this is recorded?--Aervanath (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is listed in the sockpuppets of HanzoHattori category. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: what exactly does a block evading sockpuppet have to do in order to get checkusered and caught? I'm asking because I had a SPI report (initially) rejected by a clerk, although the evidence was quite extensive and in my opinion also very clear: [12]. Now, it seems that User:Ostateczny_Krach_Systemu_Korporacji was checkusered and blocked without any evidence to be seen anywhere, while my report (with extensive evidence) does not even get checkusered. This seems very strange to me; could someone please explain what is going on? Offliner (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it usually depends on a case-by-case basis. I know HanzoHattori's MO from previous dealings, and I recognized the same style of editing in this new account. At SPI, it's hard to say when a case will or will not be accepted; there are a number of occasions where I thought requests should have been accepted, but they hadn't. Try to present evidence as best as you possibly can, and just hope for the best. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to review - have been pretty busy IRL but should hopefully get to it in the next day or so. I did tweak the infobox to make it less wide. Hope that was OK, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. Any help is greatly appreciated! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you are a wiki admin. I have a request, please check the edit's done by use Sturunner. This user is not contributing anything in wiki positively. He is only manipulating facts in different wiki article written with proper facts. He is biased towards some specific religion and he is only manipulating with complete biasness.

Thanks Mdabdul (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted DrKieran and I want to alert you to the fact that RevAntonio/75../76.. is back once again causing troll like harrassment. I would like to formally request that something be done to ban this person for a considerable period of time. He doesn't understand the rules of the game and openly flouts them. He has a very long history as you know of proven harrassment and has invoked the right to vanish and yet never does. I believe he needs to be range blocked. Finneganw 23:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to block his IPs on sight everytime he returns to Wikipedia. Range blocks would not be helpful here, since this user is operating a very large IP range. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it him you just blocked? I hope so! Thanks!Aggiebean (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. I've also semi-protected a few pages, including your user talk page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what you are trying to do to deal with the abusive messages being left on pages by 75/65/RevAntonio. The culprit knows exactly what he is doing. I think it is high time he was banned for a very long time. He goes way too far and he aims to upset. 17:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Finneganw

If AncientObserver is a checkuser-confirmed sock of Muntuwandi, who is indef blocked, wouldn't it be normal to block AncientObserver as well? I assume nobody is thinking of opening up a second chance to Muntuwandi. All I know is what I read in the ANI thread, where I saw your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Jay Waxman, not AncientObserver. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, RE is back, he recreated the extreme abuse survey page and the ritual abuse-torture page. I've fixed those but there may be more. I'm surprised the EAS page wasn't salted, considering this was the [13] [14] third or fourth time this has happened. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salted, socks blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you clarify what you mean by "Possible"? In the interest of AGF, the user (now indef blocked) seems convinced that a user with a grudge created that account and deliberately acted as his sock to get him banned. "'Mr.neutral' did not do me any favors..."

That'd obviously be a less reasonable claim if the IPs were from the same city block.

(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Interestedinfairness/Archive) --King ♣ Talk 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they both come from the same general location, but there's hundreds of active WP editors coming from that area. Judging by the shared MO, I believe it's  Possible that the two are the same, but then again, it could easily be someone else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is this so-called editor going to be banned from wikipedia? Please check my discussion page and you will see he is leaving the same sorts of harrassing messages as he has left elsewhere. I want him stopped please. Thank you for your assistance. He simply doesn't get the message. Finneganw 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, he's not banned, but indefblocked. Banning won't really change anything for now; he simply will continue to pop up under a new IP every few hours. Just keep on ignoring him and I'll semi-protect pages to prevent his IP harassment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Finneganw 10:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's back and trashing me on other peoples' talk pages, here are the two new IPs he's using:76.195.92.44 and 75.21.103.13 Aggiebean (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the editor who adds stuff about how Buddhism is the religion of war banned? If so, wouldn't it be better to revert and block him rather than protect the article? ⟳ausa کui ^× 19:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's banned user Hkelkar. Unfortuantely, revert+block does not work with this user because he will come back under a new account name to undo my edit. In addition, there's another banned user Nangparbat, who is going around WP trying to revert all of the edits made by Hkelkar socks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you notified him YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have to wonder why you made this edit [15]. The question the IP was asking seems innocent enough. Deavenger (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP belongs to banned user Nangparbat. He's repeatedly attempted to recruit other editors to do his bidding under false pretenses (somewhere along the melee, he forgets to mention that he himself is a banned user). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for explaining it to me. Deavenger (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UltimateG (talk · contribs) of Albatross2147 (talk · contribs)? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this user is asking a review of the block you placed there in January because of Runtshit. Due to the nature of the WHOIS (wtf), I think it's best if you could have a look first. Thanks! -- Luk ^talk 05:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one that got away.70.112.203.19 (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I would like to initiate a user checks on user:Cinéma C and user:Athenean for alleged use of sock puppet violations. I think one of these two users may have created the Mr.Neutral or any of the others. I know user:Metrospex has been "proven" to be the culprit, but I still think there is something missing here. As you know, these two users have accused me in the past. How do I initiate a sockpuppet investigation? Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the instructions at WP:SPI and follow the example of a few of the accepted investigations. Mind you, you're going to need sufficient evidence to back up your claim. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a lot of evidence, I think the case merits at least a look into it? How comes it was closed so soon?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Please do not make false accusations against me . The section I edited specifically asks for improvement in the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.77.24 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nishkid. Koov seems to be back; his Russia–Palestine relations should be speedily deleted, if not for block evasion then for being a direct copy from here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked and deleted. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the checkuser who performed the check on MusicInTheHouse in the Wikipéire case, would you be willing to make a comment here? Your insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 02:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid unfortunately you protected the wrong version of the article as shown here by FutPerf [16]. The right version was a consensus with Factuarious and Andreas remarks on references. This one [17]. Please revert to our consensus.--Sarandioti (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. Delivered automatically by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 15:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know that the troll is back again. I would request that my page be protected against him. Thanks in advance. Finneganw 07:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm asking very nicely that you strike-through the words "troll" and "RevAntonio" in the above post. You know their use is contra policy. However, I don't expect anything at all except another witch hunt attempt from you.75.21.147.93 (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they are back, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain. I suspect there are additional hidden socks considering they have used 2 different variable IPs before. Edward321 (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.160.112.4 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. CAn't believe there's so much hagiography Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pakistan YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.158.178.91 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.153.132.231 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.153.129.95 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.153.128.233 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.153.131.208 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.234.201 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.178.104 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.239.196 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

81.158.129.71 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.160.112.112 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.162.67.144 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.151.122.78 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.239.14 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.239.88 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.156.214.67 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 86.154.149.61 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.153.128.190 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.235.77 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.156.208.28 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.153.133.238 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.156.212.94 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.153.133.20 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.165.239.244 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.162.68.53 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

81.158.129.21 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.156.211.111 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.151.123.110 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.153.128.250 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

81.151.100.242 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.177.79 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

81.158.128.99 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked user:24.28.76.204 as a hkelar sock and user:86.158.236.221 as Nangparbat for 3 weeks - both falling under WP:DUCK--Cailil ^talk 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had added a second set of brackets somehow... and broke the image... and didn't check it. Thanks very much for catching it.- sinneed (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has started revert warring again [18] [19] [20]. No discussion, just the usual sterile undos. He is also tag-teaming with User:Sarandioti to get around 3RR, e.g. on Himare. --Athenean (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again empty accusations. What's next? Nishkid I did not tag team with anyone check the log. I just have a comment: Athenean is accusing Pakapshem of edit-warring, but let's check what has Athenean been doing: [21] [22]Below line 26 he removes the same section again. [23] [24] I'm not an expert in wiki-guidelines but this seems like edit-warring(not just in the same 24 hours, but in the same 12 hours!). And if I remember correctly I have been blocked for much less. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Pakapshem edit-warring continues: [25] [26] [27]. He is also teaming up with Sarandioti, who is also edit warring [28] [29] [30], even using the same edit summaries. This has got to stop. --Athenean (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]