Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:45, 10 November 2009

If you leave me a message here, I will reply to it here. Please check back for a reply.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, I will check your talk page for a reply.
This way, we keep conversations all in one location, making them much easier to follow. Thanks!
To leave me a new message, please click HERE

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

A Note About Advertising and Conflicts of Interest

If I reverted your link addition or removed your links from an article, please read this:

If you have additional information to add to the article, why not simply add it rather than having an external link?

Archive Jul06-Dec07, Archive Jan08-Dec08, Archive Jan09-Current

To leave me a new message, please click HERE.

SPI

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for sticking around at SPI even though the bot is down. It's more work, with suddenly less clerks and CUs, so thanks! Nathan 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrinal Pandey

You comments would be greatly appreciated at the above when you have some time. Cheers, Tiptoety 05:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wifione clarification

Hi Versageek, I noticed you had commented on the investigation with respect to my id being suspected of being a sock puppet. I also saw a statement in my investigation from you that said it is 'possible' that I am a sock puppet. I just wished to find out the reasons you said that. Also, I noticed that against 'possible', a line was written - "same ISP than some previous sockpuppets" I wanted to know whether this is true or not; that my ISP is the same as some previous sockpuppets, and whether that would be enough reason to term this case as a possible case of sock puppetry. I wanted to request you to guide me to the right forum to find out the reasons, if this is not the correct place. Thanks, Wifione (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You do indeed share an ISP with the Mrinal Pandey sock farms. Lots of people share ISPs, so I don't consider it enough to say with certainty that you are another sock of that user. You also share a number of behaviors with the Pandey socks, this - combined with the shared ISP is what led me to state that it's possible you are a sock. You need to tread lightly on the IIPM article, there is a long history of attempts to whitewash there. Reliable sources aren't limited to large, mainstream western media outlets - especially when it comes to dealing with non-western subject matter. --Versageek 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Much appreciated.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:BaldPete

User:BaldPete is back editing with User:StillBaldPete. I spoke with another administrator, but they referred me to you as the blocking administrator and as a CheckUser. I see you're marked as busy, so if I don't get a response in 12-24 hours, I'll contact another checkuser. Cheers, — Deon555_{I'm BACK!} 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Versageek, just wanted to update you on the situation.. I've sent you an email regarding it. Cheers, — Deon555_{I'm BACK!} 04:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BaldPete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on unblock-en-l asking for an unblock on the basis that he is not HesAChamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm inclined to accept that as I cannot find the signature phrase "self-promoter" in any of his edits. Checkuser does show that he shares an IP and an identically configured computer with WhattaFeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SoltsTold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), HighShoolHotshot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and SteveManess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but he claims to edit from a library terminal. I'll check out StillBaldPete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Talk 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I told him that creating the second account pretty much destroyed any chance of unblocking given his editing and block history, but I still suspect he is a different person that got caught up in another users stuff. If you do unblock him put his name on my talk page under unblocked users so I can monitor him. I'll leave it to you. Fred Talk 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the block. The computers at this library are all the same and use software loaded from an image file, so that may explain why the technical elements along with IP addresses are the same. Regards, BaldPete (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request regarding IP rangeblock you made

This is the rangeblock you made, and the request for unblocking came here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on the "god is rubbish" deletion discussion

Yes, I do find it funny. --Angeljon121 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

reversion of changes

why did u revert my changes on the page urubhanga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiznitz69 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My user block

I've noticed my account has been blocked from an IP range. I've sometimes used the library computer to edit articles as well as my own; maybe someone else at the library does their own editing as well--Robert Treat (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

pronto pup edit

I created a link via Youtube to add to the pronto pup wiki page and it was edited out... just wondering why this happened. Thanks! Otter2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.45.237 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hi Versageek. I saw your comment in the history for the Internap article, and I can't tell you the effort that went into making the contribution neutral - in citing sources, taking any language that may appear biased out, etc. A lot of changes (I believe for the better) had already been made based on earlier conversations with Tedder. I think you'll find I'm more than happy to make changes to help it meet Misplaced Pages standards, but does the content have to be deleted completely? Please, any insight you can provide is appreciated. Thank you. Kkeller0704 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

The article shouldn't read like a product brochure. It's ok to mention the names of the products and a sentence or two about what they are, but leave out the sales pitch. --Versageek 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You have deleted my article. - Please revise your decision

04:22, 20 July 2009 Versageek (talk - contribs) deleted "Abdul Ghaffar Junbah" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

You have deleted my article. This is about a self-claimed prophet. I myself does not agree 100% with his claim however, in term of whether there is a claim or not, it a fact. I have linked it to his website. Obviously, there is not much published in notable press about this but that is true for any religious leader, when they start up their campaigns. His significance is because of his claim only. He claims to be the promised one, who shall bring all faiths - whole population of the world - to one faith only. Ahmadiyya faith believes that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Promised Messiah (second coming of Jesus) and this person claims that he is the Promised Son as prophesied by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Please guide. --On.quest (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You may request a community review of my decision via the the deletion review process. There is a chance that the community will request the article be restored and sent through the article for deletion process. There are many, many, many self-claimed prophets in the world. I'm afraid that until this individual's claims are publicly accepted or at least formally acknowledged by the religious community, he really doesn't qualify for an article here. --Versageek 19:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

We are new to Misplaced Pages, and I thought I was working within our user space. Guess not. Thanks for your help. Waukesha County UWEX (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-creating an article

Thanks for the reply. Can you please guide me whether can I create the article you deleted if I have more references or do I need to discuss it with you first. --On.quest (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

email...

check your email. Kingturtle (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied --Versageek 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Article, Sex Shop - Canada

Hi,

I apologize for the misuse of the link to A Little More Interesting. I was following the example in the UK section of the same article. "Sex Shop" has a connotation that is not very positive and I wanted to show that not all shops are like the stereotype. Should I describe the differ types of shops in the article in order to provide informational value instead of pointing to our website?

I also do't agree with the deletion of the text that stated A Little More Interesting has a PHd on staff. I believe that this does have value in illustrating the range of types of shops.

Bssorrell (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of 'spam' in that article, most of which has been cleaned up now. It would be best to use text to describe the different types of shops, rather than linking to them. If A Little More Interesting is a notable establishment and meets our guidelines for companies, you could create a separate article about it, then link to that article from the Sex shop article, but external links to non-notable establishments are discouraged. --Versageek 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You Removed My Legitimate References

Please restore the verifiable references your bot removed on Larry Jay Levine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.80.62 (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI fishing...

I'm not sure that this question is ethical, so I won't be offended if you refuse to answer... re: Greenock125, were there any other registered users created from that IP address? Cheers, TFOWR 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of very obvious Greenock125 socks, as evidenced by usernames starting with "Greenock". They were already blocked, so I presume someone recognized them. --Versageek 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request removed

Sorry, didn't mean to remove CoM comments, only my request. This is a personal attack, so I'm removing my request. No malice intended. Scribner (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Scribner (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kxings SPI

I've added another suspect account, Kxing (talk · contribs), to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kxings that was blocked over a year ago. I'm not sure if this needs a checkuser update or not give that it is a blatantly obvious sock, but I thought you should know. --Farix (Talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's too old for Checkuser to be any good, but looking at it's deleted contributions - it is certainly the same user.. (they created the same article in 2008) --Versageek 20:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Daisy Fuentes

Hi,

My name is Tamara and I am personal assistant to Ms. Fuentes. Together her and I have revised her Misplaced Pages but unfortunatley it keeps being reverted back to the original by you. If posslibe can you repsect her wishes to leave up her version of wikipedia. If you have any questons please email me at <redacted>.

Thank You,

Tamara 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am not Versageek but I am the administrator who blocked you for repeated reversion of the article in question. I left a message on your talk page about this issue. Please go there to read it, as it addresses your concern in more detail. --Chris (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

The box seems to be down .. completely. --Dirk Beetstra 06:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

/me curses in the general direction of her ISP ;-) --Versageek 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Domaining / Domain name speculation - Possible vandalism?

It seems that both the Domaining and the Domain name speculation are up for AfD due to the same user ( Magicalthirty ) who seems to have a rather curious idea that domain names are registered to take advantage of "Future Trademarks". The Domaining issue was settled after discussion and now it seems that this user has nominated it again. Surely the whole principle of Misplaced Pages is that articles can be developed into worthwhile resources? Jmccormac (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I loathe the huge amount of 'low content, low value' sites that litter the Internet thanks to domain farmers, I do believe that at least one of the two articles you mention needs to remain. There isn't much I can do though, apart from voting in the AfD's myself.. which I will do. --Versageek 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The parked and PPCed section of .com/net/org is quite significant but a lot of it is now turning towards development as PPC revenues have fallen over the last year. There is a clear difference between domain name speculation and cybersquatting, and the distinction tends to be lost sometimes. Jmccormac (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice: Katsumasahiro2

Hello, Versageek. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Katsumasahiro2. Thank you.

Figured you may want to comment on this --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AN Post

There is an ongoing ANI thread that may require your input since you were a part of a checkuser on the subject of the thread. If you would kindly post to the thread when you have time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your bot reverted my edit

I checked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:EL for policies on external links, YouTube isn't even listed on the page, so rather than worry about it, I put the link in the talk page, and called your bot stupid.

Since it is your bot, I am letting you know. FX (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:EL: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Misplaced Pages visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content.". There are many problems with these links, though there are good cases. You might want to re-read that guideline, and if you still believe that the link is adding to the page, you can revert the bot's edit. --Dirk Beetstra 06:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Impostor account(s)

The account Childof12AM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious impostor of User:ChildofMidnight. He shows no contribs because his attempts to edit my page (and presumably to stir something up) were blocked. I just wonder if this is part of the Liebman family of socks, or if its coming from somewhere else, like maybe the Pioneercourthouse sockfarm? Those are the most obvious possibilities that come to mind. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And another impostor, calling himself BBBfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, also trying to foment trouble, i.e. to interfere with the contact ban between me and User:ChildofMidnight. I'm suspicious of Pioneercourthouse, just because he's also been active in the last couple of days. However, PCH is jumping from one country to another with his IP's, so there's probably not much that can be done there except to whack the moles as they pop up. I'm also taking this info to another admin when I find one. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While the two accounts don't share IPs, they do share enough that I'm certain they're socks of each other. Hard to say if they are PCH though.. I see they've both been blocked at this point. --Versageek 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. We'll see if this becomes a recurring problem, or remains just a once-in-awhile thing. Thanks for your help. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, Versageek: Wknight94 17:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see...

...my talk and/or that of User:Drew R. Smith ... we ran the same check. You get the same result? ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Casa Manana wiki

I am a current employee of Casa Manana and would like to make you aware of a wiki user called Ziggypop who is making unsubstantiated and defamatory statements on the Casa Manana wiki. What do I need to do to block postings from this user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemcman (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Q4sales

Can you look in on User_talk:XLinkBot#helpme; a new user Q4sales (talk · contribs) asked a q there, and used a {{helpme}} to do so; I removed the {{}}, and explained use of helpme on their talk.

(I also 'welcomed' them, and will check on possible username vio)

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Childof12AM

I can't find in the SPI where anyone determined whether ThreeE or Dottie are connected with Childof12AM, etc. Baseball Bugs carrots 13:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Apserus

Hi. This SPI case is archived, but the edit warring at Duduk article continues. Could you please check if 67.150.124.123 (talk · contribs), who is reverting the article now, is Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs) evading the block? Thanks. Grandmaster 17:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. The IP is part of a dialup pool from a different ISP in the same general geolocation. Blocking the IP won't help, as it's likely to change the next time they dial in. --Versageek 19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you semiprotect Duduk, or I should ask someone else? Grandmaster 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for two weeks on the WP:WRONGVERSION. --Versageek 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grandmaster 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check if Monlonet (talk · contribs) is the same person as Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs)? He edit wars at the same article Duduk, like Zvartnotz2 did, and he joined an edit war on Urartu, which was previously reverted by 76.232.252.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Monlonet reverted Urartu to the version of 76.232.252.180, after the article was semiprotected. Looks very suspicious, especially considering that contribs of Monlonet almost exclusively consist of reverts on contentious articles, and that the IP points to the same location as the one reported above. Thanks. Grandmaster 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They geolocate to the same very large city, share a very large ISP & other very common technical elements. I see he has a tendency to edit while logged out, and occasionally appears to logout to edit - and he clearly shares the same strongly held POV about an obscure musical instrument as User:Zvartnotz2. I suspect at the very least, they know each other.. Is there any progress toward a compromise on the talk page.. or is that unlikely to happen? I can full protect it for a while if there's a chance the dispute can be worked out. Otherwise we're probably in for a run of Whack-a-mole. :( --Versageek 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is in progress, I'm trying to work out a compromise solution with other involved users. But this particular person is very unlikely to be interested in any dispute resolution, takes no part in discussions, and canvassing to get other people involved in his edit wars. I reported him to WP:AE, since the article is an arbitration covered topic. I think full protection is not required right now, the problem is caused just by 1 person. I hope the admins at AE will sort this out. Thank you very much for your help. I will inform the folks at AE of your CU findings, if you don't mind. Grandmaster 08:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check another 2 suspicious accounts, Soukrot (talk · contribs) and Nareg510 (talk · contribs)? They edit the same topics as the previous bunch of sock accounts, and appear to be sleeper accounts of the same person. Thanks very much. Grandmaster 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nareg510 (talk · contribs) & Turk00 (talk · contribs) = Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs), a blocked sock of "banned user Ararat arev".
• Soukrot (talk · contribs) = Monlonet (talk · contribs), a blocked sock of Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs). --Versageek 23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All blocked per Grandmaster's request on my talk.  Sandstein  10:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. How about Proxyz (talk · contribs)? Ararat arev is known to use sleeper or compromised accounts. Grandmaster 05:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please also check Kazanciyan (talk · contribs), another suspect account? There are way too many of them. I think a number of articles should be placed on long term semi-protection, so that only established users could edit them. Duduk and Urartu are 2 such articles. Grandmaster 07:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't make any technical connections between Proxyz or Kazanciyan and the other users. They seem to be coming from different parts of the country. I've semiprotected Duduk for 6 months, Urartu was already semi-protected. --Versageek 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot again. Grandmaster 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again, but could you please check another bunch of suspicious accounts? Aptak (talk · contribs), Harut8 (talk · contribs) and ItsAraratNotUrartu (talk · contribs) appear to be the socks of either Ararat arev or Zvartnotz2. Thanks. Grandmaster 12:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Harut8 (talk · contribs) and Zaven2 (talk · contribs) as clear socks of Zvartnotz2, and ItsAraratNotUrartu as a sock of Ararat arev. Aptak is from the wrong part of the country. --Versageek 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 04:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check yet another account? I have a reason to suspect that Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs) is Kazanciyan (talk · contribs) evading his ban. Or it is either Zvartnotz2 or Ararat arev. Thank you very much. Grandmaster 05:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Different laundry drawer. I've blocked that account as a sock of blocked User:Meowy. --Versageek 06:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done on catching Meowy, I never suspected he was socking, though with his defiant behaviour it somehow does not surprise me. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one: 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Goes around and reverts the articles for the above socks, namely for Kazanciyan and Tamamtamamtamam (i.e. Meowy). Could you please check if the IP is related to any of established users, or it is just another meatpuppet? Grandmaster 07:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I know who it is. 216.165.12.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a similar address from NY University, was blocked as a sock of Hetoum I (talk · contribs): I think it is time to ask for indefinite block of that user, considering the number of sockery bans. I will file a report at WP:AE. Grandmaster 07:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rex Dominator

Findings posted; waiting for you to confirm or refute. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Avi. I posted on the SPI page. --Versageek 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Domaineering

Hi. A simple web search will establish that Prof. William Lorenz does indeed exist and is the originator of the concept "domaineering" as more or less synonymous with "domain advertising". Please see for example Urban Dictionary or Webster's Online dictionary. Additionally, there are not found any competing claims to the origins of topic. "Domaineering" is a balanced and neutral scholarly article which is devoid of advertising.

Kindly unprotect and restore to original status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the links to this Professor William Lorenz seem to be based on reusing Misplaced Pages material. Apart from a "ratemyprofessor" style link (Erie Community College) to a professor of that name, there is no clear reference or link to this discovery of "domaineering" by the above professor or any academic or published source on this claim. It is not verifiable as there seems to be no sources on this other than the Misplaced Pages article. Jmccormac (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?

ArticleAlley, which you deleted, does meet the editorial criteria for notability:

Criteria

from WP:WEB # The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

That's why there was the Google Books citation, which clearly shows several, independent, authors who have cited ArticleAlley.

I am republishing the article and I'm going to watch the page and if you PROD it for speedy deletion again, I'm going to remove your PROD. You're not a dictator, only an admin. 34pin6 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have re-instated the above message. Although strong, I feel it falls firmly within the limits of "parliamentary language". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

email I sent

Hi, I sent you email few days ago. I believe polite admins usually respond their emails.Thanks.mbz1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.128 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Is it fairly certain that Max Antean is a sock of Pioneercourthouse? If so, it would explain a number of things. Also, would the broader range of IP address blocks also theoretically prevent him from updating User talk:Pioneercourthouse‎? I think he last edited it about 2 hours ago, which I'm assuming was before the IP blocks. The point being, if he's editing after those blocks, does that mean it's still not a broad enough block? Baseball Bugs carrots 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Risker told me it's "95% certain". That would explain a few other impostors of Axmann8 from last spring. It's odd that Axmann8 also turned up today after a 4 month absence. I wonder if there's any chance that Axmann8 actually is Pioneercourthouse? I think not, but it's a funny coincidence that they were both active today and one had tried to impersonate the other. Baseball Bugs carrots 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet and IP

Hi, User:Philbox17 is now using 24.37.21.164 to vandalize the article, would you please block this account. I assume it is User:Philbox17 at his work computer. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a garden variety vandal, and he stopped a few hours ago. I have little doubt that Philbox17 will be back, but this IP doesn't appear to be him. --Versageek 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

okay 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nareg510

• Nareg510 (talk · contribs) & Turk00 (talk · contribs) = Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs), a blocked sock of "banned user Ararat arev".

Nareg510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) swears he's done with editwarring. I'm giving him a "fresh start". I'll monitor him, and may run a checkuser on him from time to time, but please don't automatically block him. Whoever he is, he wants to try again. Fred Talk 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Events have overtaken the relevancy of my comments here but fwiw... The evidence from my CU on this user tied him to Ararat-arev via a previously identified sock of Ararat-arev. The evidence tying him to both Turk00 (talk · contribs) & Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs) is particularly strong - to the point where "my roomate/friend/family member" would be the only plausible defense. I'm always willing to give someone a second chance, particularly when an established user is willing to monitor them - but IMHO, it may be a bit too soon for this user.. --Versageek 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, would you please have the admins shut down yet another sockpuppet account of Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Philbox17 this time it is User:Québécois1837. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70." that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The user 76.64.152.111 try to block all the users who edit the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois article. He erase all other users contributions and try to block everybody editing this article by calling them sockpuppets. Considering he try to block everybody and don't want to cooperate I ask you to block this anonymus user 76.64.152.111. Thank you. User:Québécois1837

• Hi, would you mind advising the editors User:DGG and User:Frmatt that I am not involved in an edit war. I am trying to stop the recreating sockpuppet from vandalizing the article. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, thank you for blocking User:Québécois1837 as a sockpuppet. The article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois has been locked down for a couple days. I hope the admins that are policing it now, will be able to identify the RRQ members sockpuppets and take over for me. I would like to move on to other things. Keep up the good work! Thank you again. 76.64.152.111 (talk)

Local Search

Hi,

Not sure why you keep deleting the link to this article. It is not spam, but real, helpful information to people who need help with local search. The article has valuable and appropriate information, and it is a good addition to the common understanding of the subject, especially among small business owners.

Apologies if I didn't understand Misplaced Pages guidelines. In my case, at least, it shows that I am just a regular person and not a professional spammer.

Best,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.144.32 (talk • contribs) 16:04 25 September 2009 (UTC (UTC)

RRQ sockpuppets

Hi, keep on blocking those sockpuppets -:) 76.64.152.111 (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Your bot

just made a disastrous revert. please watch out. --Moflocker (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another sock

Just letting you know because you've had a role in the earlier SPIs...there's a new sock of Philbox17...the SPI is here. Frmatt (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

In terms of NPOV, I tend to favor the wording in the sock's preferred version. It doesn't use words like "only" and "was a flop". Please consider this before reverting. I will however; block the sock (confirmed by CU tools), as he's evading a block. --Versageek 11:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, those terms/quotes are directly from the third-party, arm's length, NPOV citations that are provided to support the article. The sockpuppet is a non-arms length member of the RRQ and lacks NPOV. Thank you, for continuing to police the article and sockpuppets. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have replaced my sentence with a quote, which is fine, but could you put the citation back to support the quote? 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Versa, I left a message over at User talk:76.64.152.111 but thought I'd leave one here too...I strongly support you working with this sock to rehabilitate them and hope that you succeed! I'm going to continue to work with the ip to try and get them to come to an understanding that they are sometimes just as NPOV as Philbox17 and to help them become a more neutral editor. Frmatt (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. I filed a CU request here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I. Since you have previously performed a CU on one of the listed accounts, i.e. Kazanciyan (talk · contribs), maybe you could run a CU for this request? Thank you. Grandmaster 06:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another sock...

Patriote17 is back, this time as User:NordiquesQC. I have started a SPI and an ANI about him. He has also made a personal attack against me on Talk:Réseau_de_Résistance_du_Québécois#Complaint_against_User:Frmatt. Frmatt (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt clearly admit that he is doing vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:76.64.152.111, in the section your leaving. "you've done some excellent work! WP always needs more editors, especially those who are willing to do vandalism fighting like you have been doing." NordiquesQc (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2009

User:Frmatt clearly admit that he is doing vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:76.64.152.111, in the section your leaving. "you've done some excellent work! WP always needs more editors, especially those who are willing to do vandalism fighting like you have been doing." He give credit to user for making vandalism on the RRQ page, it is his own words, there is a serious problem with that user. NordiquesQc (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2009

Melt Bar and Grilled

Hi there. I saw you speedied the above page. I wanted to see if you'd be willing to reconsider your decision. I think the content asserted sufficient notability, and the there were more than enough sources to establish that this was a notable establishment, including coverage in both local and national media. Thoughts? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Melt Bar and Grilled

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Melt Bar and Grilled. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Pennie article

I recently made grammatical clarifications and source additions to the page which in its entirety were reverted by your bot because of the Dillinger Escape Plan's Myspace link which wasn't the correct format.

I'm not going to do this over again although if you're in a good mood please do it, while "fixing" the myspace link.

-65.184.68.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Blocked bot

I have blocked the bot that did this edit, which is vandalism. Presumably the bot removes external links. This edit did not just deleted an external link; it undid the whole edit, which contributed a substantial amount of material. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot reverts edits in which links to specific domains are added. Experience has determined that removing only links or reverting only the edit in which the link was added when the editor has made a series of edits causes more problems than it solves.

The domains which XLinkBot reverts are listed at User:XLinkBot/Revertlist, Any administrator may edit this list, it's format is the same as the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. Domains such as tripod.com and youtube.com are reverted when added by IP editors or non-autoconfirmed editors because they are more often than not, used inappropriately. --Versageek 18:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I am going to add to that: Removal of the tags, although in good faith, was certainly not appropriate, and the insertion of the youtube links is also questionable, see WP:EL, which discourages rich media. The bot indeed reverts all edits by an editor, as past research has shown that reverting only a last edit often leaves broken pages behind, while reverting all of the editor and notifying him, friendly(!), that he has been reverted and that he can undo the bot edit while reconsidering, is really, by far, a better method than only reverting one edit. That has been discussed over and over.

As Versageek says, youtube and tripod links are often inappropriate, and especially when added by editors who are not familiar with our policies and guidelines, which is generally true for IPs and new users. You are right in saying that it does make mistake, but so do all of our anti-vandalism bots (or I could even say, all of our bots), and when I looked into some frequently reverted domains (like myspace), its error rate is pretty low. Moreover, the bot is programmed to be extremely friendly, and many people find it more helpful than damaging. I think your block is needlessly harsh. --Dirk Beetstra 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

CU request

Hi. Could you please check another couple of a suspicious accounts? I have a reason to suspect that Aptak (talk · contribs) is the same person as Verjakette (talk · contribs). Verjakette's last confirmed socks were Greiwood (talk · contribs) and Lumberjak (talk · contribs). The account of Aptak was created soon after Lumberjak was blocked, but was not much active until recently. He is interested in the same articles as Verjakette. The IP 69.143.185.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was used by both Capasitor (see SPI on him: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Capasitor/Archive) and Greiwood, the most recent socks of Verjakette. But it seems like this IP range is blocked: . 69.143.131.204 is another IP used by Verjakette, which was confirmed by CU. Could you please check if Aptak could be the same person as the one who used those IPs?

•  Confirmed Aptak = Lumberjak

Also, Ptrustct (talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA, who's only contribution are 2 rvs, one in support of Gazifikator (talk · contribs), who has recently been blocked for edit warring on the article Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, and another one in support of Aptak. Could you please check if Ptrustct is related to any known puppeteers or registered users? Thanks a lot. Grandmaster 06:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• They aren't Aptak, wrong country. These two are tough to call, they geolocate to the same city in Armenia, but other elements don't match. It could be a home IP/work IP situation, or it could be people with similar views. --Versageek 13:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Grandmaster 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cat 6

Hello,

I added a link on the Cat6 page under further reading on a how to make your own cable on our blog and the bot took it off. In the past my friends have done the same and never had a bot take it off. I just wanted to make sure the bot was working correctly or did I do something wrong?

Simplejacktard (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

--Mercy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplejacktard (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Changing Sock templates

In case you haven't been following the template discussions at WT:SPI, there are changes and the templates that you have at your subpage User:Versageek/CUlinks have been deprecated.--Doug. 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock issues

Noroton has a big ugly sock message on his user page which detracts from those nice paintings. His block is clearly explained on his block record. Should you consider removing it? It just adds humiliation to the punishment. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned the block in a discussion at AN/I: WP:AN/I#Speaking of socks. I'm wondering what happened, and whether this is or isn't connected to the IP sock who started that thread, or any of the large families of sock farms that beset the American politics articles over the past couple years. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I will comment on AN/I when I get home from work in a few hours. I'm fairly certain that Noroton is unrelated to the IP sock & the others you mention. --Versageek 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll also notice an explanation from Noroton on his talk page. Assuming it is in good faith he was not intending to violate policy and won't in the future. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject User:JohnWBarber is asking to be unblocked and says they will only use that account in the future. I've put the unblock on hold pending comment on the matter from you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

<-I have no problem with unblocking Noroton or any one of his other accounts. I just ask that another admin do the unblocking. --Versageek 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

I run a blog site. I have done several interviews(and will continue to do more) with various people. The website is jeffcramer.blogspot.com. Several of the people are involved with the films you have put on Misplaced Pages. One of them has his own entry: Paul Kratka.

I thought people who link on to the sites would want to read the interviews. Like any interview, it is one person's feeling about the film.

As I said, I would like Misplaced Pages or whoever is in charge of the bot to look at the site and decided if it meets the criteria or not. If you still feel it does violate the criteria, I will not add any external links. If you do not think it violates the criteria, please tell me how I can enter it without having the bot remove my entries.

Flellis (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)flellis aka Jeff Cramer

XLinkBot > BOT--Reverting link addition_BOT--Reverting_link_addition-2009-10-31T16:42:00.000Z">

Hi, I would like to know why my edition has been reverted. Is XLinkBot malfunctioning?

Chris Hughes (Facebook) profile at "External links" section removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chris_Hughes_(Facebook)&oldid=322736712

As far as I know the following url: http://www.facebook.com/ChrisHughes is public, isn't it?

I will appreciate explanations, Thanks. --Michel r (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)_BOT--Reverting_link_addition"> _BOT--Reverting_link_addition">

I will undo the bot edit. Explanation: facebook.com links are most of the time unsuitable as external links, and this type of sites are discouraged per our external links guideline. However, there are some cases where it is appropriate (if there were no such cases, it would be blacklisted). This is one of these exceptions.

The bot reverts edits by new users and IPs when they include these links. For the bot, you are a new user, and hence, you got reverted. As the bot suggests, when the link is appropriate, undo the edit, which would be the solution here (and what I just did).

I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 16:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Some questions

Versageek, would you please answer some questions I have about your block of me. It would help me understand better why you blocked.

First, how were my statements in the DRV or AfD disrupt anything? The entire debate was (actually, is) on a very contentious matter because so many editors disagree so sharply with John Wartenberg's close. I'm wondering how you think I said anything that went beyond making a point and criticizing Wartenberg and various arguments -- sharply, but civilly. I've just reviewed what I wrote in the DRV, and I don't see it. Being "disruptive" matters because it's the only justification you made for your block, which went completely and directly against WP:CLEANSTART. After the block, I saw that Lar apparently thought I was "threatening" to take him and others to ANI or somewhere to get blocked. That was his angry misreading of what I said, but if I had said it, that wouldn't have even been uncivil either. Please specifically tell me what was disruptive.

Also, since I was simply using alternate accounts in a way that had been acceptable for so long, and not using them in any intentionally abusive way, what was the reason for blocking me rather than communicating with me? Nothing in my actions indicated I would not have listened to you. You said at AN/I that I was "unintentional" in being disruptive. Doesn't an unintentional violation merit something less drastic than a block?

Also, I didn't see any request for an investigation of my accounts at the Sock or Checkuser noticeboards. Did someone contact you privately, or did you decide to look into my edits without suggestions from anybody else? If someone else suggested it, can you tell me who? I'm not interested in harassing that person, but I'd like to know if it was someone involved in that DRV. I notice that at least two checkusers have been involved in that DRV: Was it Lar who suggested the investigation or block? Was it Alison?

Also, I understand that checkusers commonly consult with each other on sock investigations. Did you do that in this case? Was it Lar you consulted with? Alison? Please tell me who, if there was anyone.

I'm not interested in arguing with you, but I would like to get a better understanding of your actions and discuss them with you. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply

First, how were my statements in the DRV or AfD disrupt anything? The entire debate was (actually, is) on a very contentious matter because so many editors disagree so sharply with John Wartenberg's close. ...

• I felt the nature of your comments certainly represented wiki-lawyering and in some cases the tone bordered on trolling. Also, it was clear you were an established user debating on a project page using an account with very few edits.. which suggested there was also violation of the (recently updated) WP:SOCK policy.

Also, since I was simply using alternate accounts in a way that had been acceptable for so long, and not using them in any intentionally abusive way, what was the reason for blocking me rather than communicating with me? ...

• Contacting you was my first instinct, but I allowed myself to be swayed by the current what did you know, and when did you know it atmosphere surrounding the use of alternate accounts. In hindsight, this was wrong and if I had it to do over again I would contact you first.

Also, I didn't see any request for an investigation of my accounts at the Sock or Checkuser noticeboards. Did someone contact you privately, or did you decide to look into my edits without suggestions from anybody else? ...

• As I was a completely uninvolved party, Lar asked me privately to evaluate the situation at DRV.

Also, I understand that checkusers commonly consult with each other on sock investigations. Did you do that in this case? ... Please tell me who, if there was anyone.

• I emailed both the arbcom & functionaries email lists shortly after I blocked the accounts. They may or may not have reviewed my actions. I usually consult with other checkusers regarding interpretation of output from the CU tool. In this case, it wasn't necessary. --Versageek 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

JohnWBarber response

(Please reformat or change the title in any way you'd prefer)

Thank you for your reply, and thank you for agreeing that a message to me would have been the better way to go. You may have seen that I'm discussing this on Lar's talk page as well. My biggest remaining disagreement with you is on whether I was disruptive, and it's one of my biggest concerns with Lar's position. You write:

I felt the nature of your comments certainly represented wiki-lawyering and in some cases the tone bordered on trolling.

By that you can't mean Wikilawyering is a blockable offense. Please don't tell me this is the first block for wikilawyering on Misplaced Pages. I could say more about how I don't wikilawyer, but I can't believe that you blocked for that reason, so let's drop it. the tone bordered on trolling I've always thought "trolling" had more to do with not caring about the outcome and just saying things to hurt others (possibly for amusement). I try to have a little humor in my arguments, but I try not to hurt others with it. It seems to me that the only behavioral element that WP:SOCK policy mentions that would justify a block is being disruptive: "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption. -- from the Oct. 28 version, the day you blocked; it's also worth noting the top line of that section : Editors must not use alternate accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:) Do you agree that my behavior on those discussion pages had to be disruptive in order to trigger a WP:SOCK violation? I think that's the only way of reading WP:SOCK.

I strongly disagree that I was disruptive, and if you think I was, please give me specific statements, either quotes or diffs or even just what you remember. Did Lar, in his message to you, point you to any in particular? I assume any violation on those grounds would be a violation of WP:DISRUPT (the worst written policy on Misplaced Pages) If we can discuss specific statements, you and I might even come to agreement.

You also write: Also, it was clear you were an established user debating on a project page using an account with very few edits.. which suggested there was also violation of the (recently updated) WP:SOCK policy.

Except if it was a WP:CLEANSTART account, which, in itself, would have been no violation. If CLEANSTART is going to exist, that kind of edit history, by itself, shouldn't be a problem. I realized that my taking a prominent role in those kinds of discussions would raise eyebrows, but I always expected that I'd simply get a message from a checkuser if I did something wrong. In my wildest dreams, I never thought what I was doing would be considered disruptive enough for a block. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

John, It's pretty clear to me that we aren't going to agree on the definition of what is disruptive. We approach the topic from vastly different perspectives. I've asked the AUSC to review my CU actions. With regard to WP:CLEANSTART, IMHO: folks who want a clean start should avoid using the squeaky-clean new account to jump headfirst into a steaming pile of drama - it kind of defeats the purpose. :-) . --Versageek 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't humble. You blocked for it. Not only without a basis in policy, but for a reason that is against policy. The "spirit" of a policy doesn't tend to extend to actions directly opposed to the language of it. I'm concerned about this communication between you and Lar. He refuses to provide a copy of his message to you. There's too much wrong with all this, and I'll probably take it to ArbCom (it seems to extend beyond the purview of AUSC). If I don't do it in the next few days, I won't do it, but if I do, I want you to know I'm doing it because I'm concerned, not because I'm angry or think you're a bad person or anything like that. I think we can each agree that we're doing what we think is right. I think the communication between you and Lar should be reviewed by some trusted third party who can say that nothing very improper was part of it, and I'd want ArbCom to say that what I did is not disruptive. I do have, going for me, the common perception of disruptive as well as that WP:DISRUPT policy. I wouldn't want anything to happen to you other than to be set right on what disruption is.

I think I want to retain the Reconsideration and CountryDoctor accounts, along with the JohnWBarber account. I think currently the other two are blocked indefinitely. Since you were the blocking admin, would you have any problem if I put statements on the top of both pages, linking them to JohnWBarber as the main account? I'll also disable the password on the Noroton account and put a notice there linking it to the JohnWBarber account. If I put notices on the other accounts and not use them, would that be all right? I'll also use the Reconsideration2 account (I was using that when I went to public terminals such as libraries; it was always linked to the Reconsideration account). Please unblock those two accounts (looks like Reconsideration2 was never blocked). JohnWBarber (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just took another look at WP:SOCK and it looks like I can't have those other accounts, the way the policy is currently written. I don't know what gave me the idea I could (maybe Lar asking me a question about it on his talk page). If I take down the "sockpuppet" boxes and put up simple notices redirecting to JohnWBarber, would you object to that? JohnWBarber (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<-I think the discussion between Lar & I does fall within the scope of WP:AUSC in that you feel it may have led me to use my CU tools inappropriately. Lar & I have both offered to send our chat log to them. I can tell you the conversation started with something to the effect of "I'm involved in this thing & I think there's a problem - can you give me a reality check".. and it was a fairly short conversation. I'm fine with you removing the sock templates & redirecting to your active account. The templates are intended to identify the primary account owner/operator, not be a Scarlet letter. If anyone gives you a hard time about it, let me know & I'll make the edits myself. You may want to keep Reconsideration2 for a public computer account.. that is certainly allowed. The other two were blocked with auto-block disabled, so you won't have any auto-block issues. --Versageek 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-published original research

Dear Page Advisor

I inserted my Name, Syed Hasan Shahid Bukhari, together with mention of the required References, meaning, availablity of my Published Work, on the www: at <Shahid Bukhari@HubPages.com>. The reference, was essentially inserted in order to help you verify my Claimed Right, to the Insertion of my name, in the Muslim Scholar's Wiki List. It was never meant as an Advertisement ... Because, I do not need Advertisements.

And regarding my creation, of the New Catagory of 'Islamic Exegetist, of the 21st Century' ... It is, because, I am much beyond your 'Conventional' Definings of Islamic Scholistics. The E-bot at your end, however; is an e-Device, what seems to disagree with any such Changes, for it understands Islamic Cognitions, either, as defined in the historical perspective, or in the Secularized Islamic Sense and Terms, vis a vis the Current State of Sciences and Technologies.

So if I am now talking to a human, one with an open mind, I request you to read some of my Published Work, unless you are familiar with these at the referred Hub Pages. For I am neither a machine, nor do I have a prejudiced mind. What I write is in leading Humanity, to the Required Mode of Cognitions, relevant, to the 21st century, and the rest of this era goals, extending unto the third millinneum, and beyond.

In case you do not know, I have defined 'Matter' and 'Idea' in an almost Redefining of the Totality of the Fundaments of Secular Belief, these include, Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. presently followed, by way of Theories and Laws within Technology based perceptions of the Existential reality.

But reckon, I should now talk to you, only after you have read my above Referred 56 Papers.

Regards Syed Hasan Shahid Bukhari 3rd November, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.47.22 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read our policies on Original research and reliable sources. --Versageek 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hetoum

Hi. Could you please check if Brunotheborat (talk · contribs) is Hetoum I (talk · contribs)?. He is an obvious SPA, and reverts the articles to the same versions as Hetoum's IPs. More information about Hetoum is available here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I. It is possible that he uses IPs of NY University. Thanks. Grandmaster 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would call this  Confirmed based on the obvious behavior & the IP range shared by the accounts. --Versageek 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 06:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

WuhWuzDat 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've filed an Arb case

Please see ] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)