Misplaced Pages

Important: This talk page is becoming very boring. Please consider leaving hilarious knock-knock jokes so as to spruce things up a little. Thanks!

Misplaced Pages:Don't Feed the Divas

Our environment, the world in which we live and work, is a mirror of our attitudes and expectations.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

User:RJR3333 likely editing as User:ECayce187

Hello, Tiptoety. I suspect that RJR3333 (talk · contribs) and ECayce187 (talk · contribs) are one and the same, and I've stated as much on ECayce187's talk page. As you can see, he has yet to respond to the matter, and has instead continued editing. In addition to what I stated there about their focus on age 16, they also favor the avert.org source; compare this to this edit. I'm not sure, however, that my evidence is enough to start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation; furthermore, the WP:CheckUser data is likely to come back stale. So since you, MuZemike and DeltaQuad were involved in the RJR3333 WP:Sockpuppet cases, I'm asking if one or all of you wouldn't mind looking into this latest case. I know that I mentioned the stale factor, but perhaps one of you have some saved data regarding the RJR3333 account? Or maybe Alison, who was the last person thus far to block the RJR3333 account, does? Flyer22 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I noticed ECayce187 (talk · contribs) about a week ago and have already ran a check. Like you said, everything is stale and CheckUser was of little use. I'll look into this more. Thanks, Tiptoety 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tiptoety. In my above reply, I thought about mentioning that you'd recently interacted with ECayce187. And before I read your reply, I was about to ask Dougweller if he wouldn't mind looking into this case (in addition to you or the others I pinged above). I had somehow overlooked or forgotten that he is also a WP:CheckUser. To my knowledge, he hasn't interacted with the RJR333 account, but perhaps he's interacted with one or more of RJR333's confirmed and/or suspected WP:Sockpuppets. Anyway, as you know, data is sometimes kept on prolific WP:Sockpuppets, which is what I imagine keeps getting User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte caught. For example, Alison (because of my suspicion and another person's help via email) recently caught him WP:Sockpuppeting as User:Yev Yev. And the User:Ferberson account was very recently globally blocked. The more ECayce187 edits and the more he ignores the comment I left on his talk about him being RJR333, as well as this discussion, the more convinced I am that he is RJR3333. I don't care if he has matured into a better editor; I notice the same type of sloppiness in his editing that I identified in RJR3333's editing, and RJR3333 was indefinitely blocked for valid reasons. If he has truly matured into a better editor, then he should appeal his block via the proper means. Either that, or edit in areas where he will not be recognized. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, ECayce187 signs his username just like RJR3333 does...with two dashes in the front. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the two dashes rings a slight bell but not enough. I don't have anything that would help. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dougweller. A lot of Misplaced Pages editors use two dashes in front of their signatures, but, when it comes to WP:Sockpuppet investigations, signature similarities can be evidence. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

After this edit to the 16 (number) article, nothing can convince me that ECayce187 is not RJR3333, and I've stated so on ECayce187's talk page. I pointed to the 16 (number) article above, and that article is indeed one of RJR3333's favorite articles. And, although I pointed to that article on ECayce18's talk page before he edited that article, I don't think that I'm the one who made him aware of that article. Even if he had only become aware of that article because of me, that still points to the fact that he ignored the WP:Sockpuppet query on his talk page, which is suspicious. I reiterate, however, that ECayce187 is RJR3333. It was previously the case that RJR3333 couldn't resist returning to the 16 (number) article. And that still holds true now. What other editor would focus so much time on that specific part of the article? Furthermore, RJR3333 repeatedly returned to edit the 15 (number) article. ECayce187 recently edited that article.

When I am dealing with RJR3333, I know it. Some of ECayce187's other interests resemble RJR3333's interests as well, including his interest in the Pedophilia article. He might have edited other articles that the RJR3333 account has edited, but the Editor Interaction Analyzer currently is not showing anything about that article overlap, even though they've both edited the Age of consent, Ages of consent in North America, 16 (number) and 15 (number) articles. Either way, I will now be reverting all of ECayce187's edits, per WP:Block evasion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: He's now acting up by impersonating me. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the user account name is more so mocking me than impersonating me, but, yeah. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed socks of one another: ECayce187 (talk · contribs), Flyer1822 (talk · contribs), JMcNeil39 (talk · contribs) and JamesChaille39 (talk · contribs). I've blocked them all. Tiptoety 18:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Tiptoety. Not surprising that he had WP:Sleeper accounts; he always has them. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we have another one: JRMillar (talk · contribs). If RJR3333 keeps WP:Sockpuppeting at these articles often, should I make a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on this matter every time? Or get a WP:CheckUser to WP:Watchlist these articles? Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely RJR3333 again. In addition to age of consent editing, the JRMillar account has edited the Crybaby Bridge article, and focuses on CNN matters/Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields matters, just like the ECayce187 account. His Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields edits have resulted in a copy and pasted move that needs a WP:Histmerge. The article should also be moved back. An article can only have one name; significant alternative names should be mentioned in the article, per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed JRMillar (talk · contribs) = ECayce187 (talk · contribs). Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Euryalus. Did you check for any WP:Sleepers? And, as I pondered above, what should I do if RJR3333 keeps WP:Sockpuppeting at these articles often? Just keep reverting? Keep reporting via WP:Sockpuppet investigations? Both? Ask a WP:CheckUser to keep an eye on these articles? I wouldn't want to keep bothering Tiptoety, you, or any other WP:CheckUser about this matter by going to you guys' talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to email me a list of the articles, I'll add them to my watchlist. Not bothered by talkpage messages either, whatever you prefer. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Euryalus. I'll either list them here or at your talk page. I don't think Tiptoety will mind if I list them here. Some are already noted above. I don't watch all of the articles that RJR3333 watches, so I'll mostly name the age of consent ones and ones that relate to that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, he asked to be unblocked a few minutes ago. That obviously should be done at his RJR3333 account or via email if talk page access is not reinstated for him at his RJR3333 account; it currently isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this and this decline to unblock, I'm pinging PhilKnight and Only to this talk page so that they have the full view of what is going on, in case they don't know already. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You can continue posting here, though your quickest recourse will be to file a SPI. SPI gets a wider audience than my talk page and may get a quicker response. Tiptoety 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just like coming to you or to Euryalus each time, it seems extremely repetitive and tiresome to start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation each time. And WP:Sockpuppet investigations often are not quick, especially when they want supposedly harder evidence instead of simply citing WP:Duck. Then again, reverting him each time is also repetitive and tiresome. Anyway, Euryalus and others, the main articles to watch on this matter are the aforementioned articles (above). He is currently editing as IP 108.192.73.8 and recently used Flyer1333 (talk · contribs) to mock me. PhilKnight, RJR3333 will never accept the WP:Standard offer; he never has, no matter what he states on that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Relevant evidence

Relevant evidence at here that should probably be considered at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Miszatomic, specifically, one example: DIFF1. Oh, and also DIFF2. — Cirt (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RightBKC

The page, you recently moved, is a redirect to itself. Please check. --Redtigerxyz 09:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a database error with the global rename extension. A Phab has been created here. Tiptoety 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please adjust block

to prevent this Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you, Tiptoety 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi. Recently I've been unable to edit on WP, due to a open proxy block (IP 185.58.82.6), on 3 February and 12 March. This happens when I'm logged in, using my WP account, using my work internet connection that I've been using since 2013, and this only happened now, in this short period. According to this I ask a IP block exemption in order to be able to continue editing/ not being afected by sistematic blocks. Best regards. Rpo.castro (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rpo.castro, the proxy block was removed by another administrator, so you should be able to edit without issue. As such, I don't see a need for IP block exempt. Best, Tiptoety 05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

My request was in order to prevent being affected by this blocks, instead of waiting a few days for each block until its withdraw. When the rpoxy block is active, how can I request IP block exemption, since I would be unable to edit pages, except my own talk page? best regards,Rpo.castro (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We generally do not grant the right preemptively and seeing as I believe it is unlikely that the block will be put back into affect anytime soon you should be able to edit without a problem. Additionally, it's my understanding that this is a work IP. As a matter of policy, we rarely grant users IPBE for the purpose of editing via an open proxy and given that you have other methods of editing (like from home), it's unlikely I would grant your request. Best, Tiptoety 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)