| Revision as of 18:43, 26 June 2012 editMuZemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users71,084 edits Done← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:48, 26 June 2012 edit undoMuZemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users71,084 edits →Boomerang225: Yes, fairly obviousNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| At ] you asked to be informed of any further potential socks. I'd therefore like to draw your attention to {{user|Boomerang225}}, which has a similar username and editing pattern as the other socks, though so far hasn't made any overtly problematic edits. Not sure if SPI is warranted at this point, though it is suspicious that they seem to have created a dummy user page—perhaps to keep under the radar. —] (]) 07:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | At ] you asked to be informed of any further potential socks. I'd therefore like to draw your attention to {{user|Boomerang225}}, which has a similar username and editing pattern as the other socks, though so far hasn't made any overtly problematic edits. Not sure if SPI is warranted at this point, though it is suspicious that they seem to have created a dummy user page—perhaps to keep under the radar. —] (]) 07:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Further investigation has satisfied me that this is indeed another sockpuppet; the new account has at least twice added the exact same text as the old one. Consider the following pairs of edits: and , and and . —] (]) 08:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | :Further investigation has satisfied me that this is indeed another sockpuppet; the new account has at least twice added the exact same text as the old one. Consider the following pairs of edits: and , and and . —] (]) 08:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::I agree that's a fairly obvious sock, in which SPI shouldn't be necessary. I'm giving the admin tools a rest right now, but if any other admin wants to block, they can go ahead. --] 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:48, 26 June 2012
Credit: Diego Delso
Subpages: Articles worked on · Good article reviews · GA standards · common.css · common.js
Archives as of the dates listed (250KB or more to load; threads more than 3 days to be archived by bot or earlier upon personal discretion; displayed in order of date of last thread):
- 2009-04-29 · 2009-10-17 · 2010-01-09 · 2010-04-27 · 2010-08-12 · 2010-11-21 · 2010-03-10 · 2011-08-07 · 2012-01-28 · 2012-09-17 · present
Question!
MuZemike, I have a question. Can I please become an admin? I am very good and I know I was blocked but you can kick me off if I do that again! Please? --Kennster2012 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Marty2Hotty
Hi MuZemike, following your block of Marty2Hotty (talk · contribs), I ran a checkuser and confirmed your initial findings. In this context, I'm a little surprised that you've unblocked. Could you let me know what changed your mind? Would you object to me reblocking? PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think there is a false positive there, in which both Marty and Bigsean0300 have been editing in the same location. After I made that block, I think Bigsean0300 then proceeded to create additional accounts to mock and joe job him. That and Marty been around a bit longer, and the unblock requests (UTRS) that I and a couple of the other CUs who have looked at this seem legit. Long story short, I don't think he's a sock. --MuZemike 19:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Trinity
I see that it is protected. However, you don't provide an explanation to what is going on. Who is doing the bad edits? What section is in question. If you do this again, you should provide a detailed explanation on the talk page of the article. That should be your job and obligation since others cannot read your mind and your one phrase explanation is uselessly vague.
I see a minor error. I was going to correct it but then I noticed it was protected. Don't ask me to post the suggestion edit because it is way too much trouble to edit that way.
Cheers.
Auchansa (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- It says in the edit history and protection log why it was protected, which was due to persistent sock puppetry while also trying to add libelous information into the article. You can wait until the protection expires to edit it. --MuZemike 03:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) MuZemike, did you mean to make that full protection? All of the sockpuppetry seems to be from IPs, so I wonder if semi would do the trick. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- What was the libelous information? If I remember to go back to fix minor errors, I can also patrol for such libelous information.
- In the future, take the time to write a description in the talk page of what you think is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchansa (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Boomerang225
At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Boomerang2 (returning sock of BoomerangWiki) you asked to be informed of any further potential socks. I'd therefore like to draw your attention to Boomerang225 (talk · contribs), which has a similar username and editing pattern as the other socks, though so far hasn't made any overtly problematic edits. Not sure if SPI is warranted at this point, though it is suspicious that they seem to have created a dummy user page—perhaps to keep under the radar. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Further investigation has satisfied me that this is indeed another sockpuppet; the new account has at least twice added the exact same text as the old one. Consider the following pairs of edits: and , and and . —Psychonaut (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that's a fairly obvious sock, in which SPI shouldn't be necessary. I'm giving the admin tools a rest right now, but if any other admin wants to block, they can go ahead. --MuZemike 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)