Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Since you are familiar with ] and ], could you block the new socks that have appeared at the AfD? ] (]) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you are familiar with ] and ], could you block the new socks that have appeared at the AfD? ] (]) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:{{Done}} - Also I {{RFPP|s}} the AfD. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:{{Done}} - Also I {{RFPP|s}} the AfD. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
== Digwuren using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox ==
] is using article talk pages as a forum to express his personal opinions: . I have asked him to stop: , but it did not help: . Could you please give him a warning and ask him to stop? ] (]) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you blocked User:75.154.186.241, I am bringing this to your attention. It appears the User:Ramu50 sockpuppet is using the IP talk page as a Sandbox and continuing to "play" with the templates while on block. I have removed the sandbox from the page and all the templates so they can't "play" with them, but it might be necessary to block the talk page....hence why I have brought this to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you think an SPI report would be needed? This Kupredu so far made only around 200 edits, a significant part of them are reverts.Biophys (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say the evidence you just provided me is almost good enough to conclusively say that Kupredu (talk·contribs) is a sock of Jacob Peters (talk·contribs). That said, Kupredu does have a number of edits that are not directly related and I would hate to block an innocent account. I recommend that you open a SPI case under Jacob Peters name and request a CheckUser. Tiptoety03:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I had almost exactly the same thought as Biophys which I expressed here: . I got suspicious when Kupredu started telling me to read Mawdsley on the Russian Civil War which is exactly what one of Jacob Peters' socks told me sometime ago. Also, while I see the point of opening a SPI case (though those take a long time and are complicated), I think Kupredu's edits follow JP's to a t. He's editing Soviet/Communism/Easter Europe articles with a Stalinist POV, Israel-Palestine articles with a support-Hamas/Hezbollah POV and Soviet-related leaders of third world countries (and Chile) with Soviet POV - this is exactly the same pattern as JP (who used to also make remarks like this: ).radek (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason those IPs do not all Geo-locate is because they are dynamic IPs (meaning they are from a mobile device). Because of this, the users IP changes rather often and could really Geo-locate anywhere. The one thing they are not are open proxies. Hope that helps, Tiptoety04:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I filed this report but clicked at the wrong button, so it went to reports not waiting for Checkuser. How to fix this?Biophys (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Add {{RFCU|Code letter 1|Code letter 2|new}} to the case. That will move it to the CheckUser queue. Make sure to replace the code letter sections with actual code letters. Cheers, Tiptoety03:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. That was swift. I am not sure if any action is needed, but only secondary account has been blocked by Moreschi in another case, although that was an evasion of block by ArbCom, I believe.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you look here under the "conclusion" heading you will see that I did implement some blocks. Cheers, Tiptoety19:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Because he had. Please see , and . While the second one is not made directly to the page in question, it is the same disputed content that the editor was warring over to being with. While the content of the first diff may not be the same revert as all the others, WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR state that that does not matter. Simply continually reverting someone is grounds for a block. I hope that clears it up, Tiptoety17:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Link three above is at 13:22 EDT: Link 4 was at 13:27 EDT. My warning was given at 13:33 EDT, after which he did not edit any pages at all. Seems kind of unfair to block when he hadn't been warned, and when he had stopped editwarring already: blocking is preventative, not punitive.--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, I am confused. He reverted after he was warned, you just said so yourself. Am I missing something here? Tiptoety18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No, thank you for pointing out my mistake. I read it as 13:32 EDT, and 13:37 EDT. Bah, it is apparent I needed to go get some sleep when I issued it. Cheers, Tiptoety18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the other ones is doing it too. I know it's not anything too serious, but checkuser did confirm they are all one user. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If they want to scream into an echo chamber, I have no issues with that. As long as they are not alerting or removing any block messages, making personal attacks, or edits with obscenities I think they are fine. If they want to waste their time talking to no one, that is their problem. :-) Tiptoety19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, way to work the knock knock joke into something useful. The one I shared was pointless. Like this joke: What's orange and sounds like a parrot? Useight (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the procedure for getting suspected (meaning "obvious") sockpuppets of an already blocked user blocked in turn? User:MissRD and User:MissRD394 are clearly sockpuppets of User:MRDU08. They're editing the same articles, re-adding the same content, and uploading the usual copyvio pics that originally landed the main account in trouble. I'm hoping there's some speedy way to do this! Mbinebri22:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just about to sign off for the night, but in response to your note... I got involved with Super Audio CD via an ANI thread a week or two ago, blocked a couple of POV warriors who were disrupting other editors, applied sprot, and have kept it on my watchlist since. It seems to be a bit of a magnet for pro-SACD fans, who clash with editors that are trying to clean up the article content.
I'm not sure about the socking - it's possible, but from what I've seen I'd guess not (I know of no CU to prove otherwise, anyway)
However, Wozwoz is being disruptive, tendentious and incivil on the talk page and in the article, per my note there. I have no issue whatsoever with your block (in fact, it's possibly overdue).
In blocking Future Perfect (an editor I have respected for some time), you did not cite chapter and verse of where he was uncivil. That would be helpful. Thanks. --macrakis (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to see the diff. I've looked over his contribs to the workshop since the 17 and did not find anything. . . R. Baley (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoety logged the block at the case page. I've provided the diff and commented at Future Perfect's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting my mistyped user name. The correct one is Rossnixon, and now it's not showing up.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)_Rossnixon">
_Rossnixon">
You are welcome. As for the correct case, I am not sure why the bot did not pick it up. Either way, I have fixed the problem and it is on the mainpage now. Cheers, Tiptoety00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Regarding your warning, I will do anything you want me to do. I will stay at 1RR on the ARS page and all ARS subpages, while this editor is blocked, is this okay? Tell me what I need to do, and I will do it. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ikip. Let me start by saying that 1RR would be good, but what would be even better would be spending more time at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron trying to gain consensus. Ultimately that is the only way to truly solve this dispute, as edit warring will only result in parties being blocked. Tiptoety00:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I have made a lot of mistakes in the past few months, mistakes which I wish I could take back. I don't know what to say, I am afraid I will say the wrong thing :(
I will do the 1RR.
I have developed a lot as an editor, believe it or not, but I see I have a long way to go.
User:Digwuren is using article talk pages as a forum to express his personal opinions: . I have asked him to stop: , but it did not help: . Could you please give him a warning and ask him to stop? Offliner (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done - and commented. 
